User talk:Tony1/Archive07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Tony, you know how strongly I believe in the guidelines at MEDMOS for keeping medical articles up to par. We had basic consensus on the Guidelines, but largely because of my travel, we slacked off on the discussion there, and wham, Radiant marked the Proposal as Historical, to our shock! Now, he says we have to go to the Village Pump to revive it <groan>—not sure if that's true, since most of us argue we had consensus, just got lazy and didn't finish, largely my fault. Anyway, if we do have to go to Village Pump, I'm worried about a copyedit. I don't want to ask you do it now, because I just left a long list of final things to resolve at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) so the text may change in the next few days, but can you add it to your list of things to think about over the next week? (DK, you too, if you're reading :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsure what is required in the short-term. Tony 03:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Nothing; just a look at the actual guideline page in a few days from now, to see if it needs a copyedit before we maybe have to take it to Village Pump. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Tony 07:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, would you mind having a brief look when you get a chance? We still need to consult several other medical WikiProjects, so don't spend too much time on the prose (it's still subject to change). Also, Colin has tweaked it a lot, and he is a very capable writer, so perhaps if you find anything troubling, you can make talk page suggestions in a copyedit section? Thanks so much, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Tony; nice work as always. When you have a chance, can you revisit and indicate on the talk page if you're satisfied with Colin's fixes? I want to stay on top of "striking objects" so that we can achieve consensus. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony 05:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Me again; what a pest. I remember we talked once about musical theatre articles; they are a wreck. Have a look at Hello, Dolly! (musical), and then see Talk:The Sunshine Boys; there seems to be a systemic problem. (Of course, MEDMOS is first :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


A user reverted your copy-edit because s/he disagreed with one change.[1]. — Deckiller 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica review?[edit]

Hi Tony,

Let me thank you again for your wonderfully scrupulous review of the Encyclopædia Britannica article. I followed your advice, and the article has been copy-edited by several experts, such as TimVickers, Phoebe, Ssilvers, SandyGeorgia, and Outriggr. Perhaps you could review the article once again, and see whether you can Support it? Thanks very much for your time and attention, Willow 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Devil May Cry[edit]

I have attended the lines you mentioned in the Featured Article Candidate page can you please take a look at them when you have time? feel free to leave comments on wich lines need work directly on my talk page that guarantees a faster action than the FAC page, thanks for your time. - 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New look at Representative peer[edit]

Changes at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Representative peer; pls revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tony, Can you please take a look at Shahbag, and copyedit where necessary? Nichalp suggested a copyedit in the FAC. We'd really appreciate if you could take a look. Thanks. --Ragib 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Great ... thanks a lot for your help. --Ragib 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is coming to Sydney[edit]

Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April 25th for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tamil language FARC[edit]

Hi, you made some comments and I've now fixed most of them and explained a few terms as well. Would you please let me know if these modifications and explanations are satisfactory? Would you help by pointing out what else can be done to regtain the FA? Thanks --Aadal 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park FAC[edit]

Thanks for the advice. Would you be willing to come back and have another look? Thank you. Alientraveller 08:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Bignole and Firsfron have copy-edited the article. Please take another look. Thanks. Alientraveller 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Do remember "Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed." Alientraveller 14:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism FAC[edit]

Can you look at the prose? I'm having a hard time with it, but can't explain. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAC[edit]

Can you provide some examples of the "bias towards Judaism and Israel [that] is variously subtle and not so subtle"? -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the fix I proposed for the undue weight you said is given to Israel? nadav 12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics bids FAC[edit]

Hello, Tony. As promised, I contacted several WPs to request assistance on reviewing the article's prose; most of them are active members of the League of Copyeditors, where I've also added a request. So far, few have replied and those who did haven't made a deep review as I would've liked (some fixes here and there). Nonetheless, I performed another copyediting on the article after some time without laying my eyes on it. I wanted to ask you to have another look, to check if by any chance the prose is better. Thanks. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Hey, Tony. I was hoping you might revisit Cameroon and see if you still take issue with the prose and oppose its FAC nomination. I've gone over the article again, and Picaroon has made some corrections. I'd also like more input from you regarding the use of semicolons in lists. You suggested I replace a couple instances of this with commas, but I'm not sure that's the right call.

Frankly, I'm flummoxed that the nomination has drawn so little attention. The country FACs are usually more active. Perhaps it's because the topic is a little-known African nation? At any rate, any further improvements you might suggest would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. What's your interest in the country? Tony 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(Hope you don't mind my moving the conversation back here to avoid fragmentation.) I lived in Cameroon for two years. I taught English there and did HIV/AIDS education in a high school as a volunteer with the U.S. Peace Corps. I've since gotten interested in the country's history and culture, so that's where a lot of my efforts on Wikipedia have been focused. — Brian (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

<font color=midnightblue>Tony</font color> 05:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tony, it's Eric once again (you know, the one pushing for Song Dynasty to get featured article status). I was wondering if you could take a peek at an earth science article that I've been working on recently. It's the article for mineralogy.

I know it's not FA material just yet, but it's well on its way. Do you mind giving some suggestions or valued opinions? That would be very helpful. Thanks.

--PericlesofAthens 03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem's lead[edit]

I have made a few changes to the intro, per the conversation on Talk:Jerusalem and per a few suggestions on the FAC. I basically moved the Palestinian state piece toward the front and added a few intermediary sentences to set up the concept created by the sentence and the subsequent paragraph. Presuming this doesn't get reverted outright, I hope you will reconsider your positions on the FAC. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm confused about your objection to the current version of Jerusalem's lead. This version was born out of my suggestion (which you said was a good idea) to fix the lead by incorporating the Palestinian's claim to east Jerusalem as the capital for a future state. The sentences before that one were added to satisfy a bunch of editors who thought that this would make the article too recentist since it focuses on a recent controversy (relative to its 5000 year history). So the current version is an attempt to meld (at least) three different opinions on how the lead should look. Do you think these viewpoints should not be reconciled? It would be excellent if you could help us by suggesting an alternative opening at Talk:Jerusalem nadav 07:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've driven my line hard, but I am a little put off by the attitude of some of the contributors in the FAC room. I'll look later. Tony 08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Insistence pays off :). Tariq removed the word storied from the lead. nadav 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


The FAC has come a long way, but it may still need some copyedit. Would you care to take a look and advise? Aditya Kabir 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Writing on Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Tony, I'm becoming increasingly fed up by the low standard of writing on Wikipedia, something you've talked about a fair bit. I find it particularly frustrating when it involves policy pages, which I work on a lot, and I feel it's time to try to do something about it.

I was wondering whether it'd be worth setting up a Wikiproject for good writing, or a Society of Professional Writers and Editors, or something similar. I thought I'd ask you before proceeding in case you already know of one. If I did set something up, would you be interested? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking mostly about awareness raising. Everyone accepts we need to cite sources, not violate copyright, not engage in libel. Very few (it seems) think it matters that articles be written properly. So I was thinking of some kind of society/wikiproject, with a good-writers barnstar, and maybe an award we can place on talk pages to signify good writing — nothing rigorous like FA, but something members of the wikiproject could hand out in order to encourage people. And a bunch of pages about how to construct decent articles; maybe something about grammar. Maybe even a noticeboard where people trying to correct bad writing, but who are being resisted, can come for support. We have similar pages for sourcing, copyright, BLP, vandalism, so there's no reason we shouldn't have one for writing.
I'll take a look at the non-free content page, though I hesitate to get involved in policy I'm not very familar with. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Voice leading[edit]

Perhaps you and User:Turangalila can help me figure out what's going on with User talk:Hyacinth#Voice leading? Why are some comments green? Who said those? Hyacinth 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, where and when was this discussion of melodic voice leading? Furthermore, it's not redundant. Hyacinth 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that melodic voice leading would be voice leading guided by voices and melodic concerns (polyphony), rather than that arising from chord progressions (homophony). Hyacinth 04:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a confusion of melody vs voice leading, melody vs harmony, and polyphony vs homophony. Voice leading is voice leading, and almost always arises from both horizontal and vertical factors. Counterpoint is voice leading in which the parts tend towards greater rhythmic independence. Tony 08:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Return to Song Dynasty Article[edit]

Hey Tony. The Song article looks much better now, and I was wondering if you could have a look-see to note any approval or disapproval of how it looks now. Thanks!--PericlesofAthens 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Royal Assent[edit]

Hi Tony, if you get time can you revisit the above FAR as there has been some work on 1c. Thanks. Ceoil 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

NFCP debate[edit]

Yes, I will withhold my suggestions for now. You're right that gradual change will probably have a greater chance of success than lumping all the change together. Punctured Bicycle 09:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's accurate to say that I'm willing to withhold my proposal for now and that I support the general push to reformat, trim, and clarify the language. To say, however, that I support the exact wording as-is would not be accurate, given my belief in my proposal.
I will comment on one aspect of your current draft. Criterion two says "non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original in the marketplace." I think it would be more accurate to say 'replace the original market—that is, demand—for the original'; it wouldn't be replacing the original object itself but the object's power to attract customers. In other words, under the current structure of the sentence, I think "the demand for" should go in front of "the original". Or the sentence can just be reworded to say "replace the commercial demand for the original," as market and marketplace are abstract.
It's worth noting that this criterion inspired my proposal to begin with. It's misleading because it only reflects 'effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work' in the law, but that is only one facet of that fair use factor. The other is 'effect of the use upon the value of the copyrighted work'—which can be interpreted more broadly. When we base our policy on the law but also wander from it, haze crops up. Punctured Bicycle 21:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


I understand, and I agree that compelling should stay in some way. However, when I think of "brilliant" prose, I think of flowery fiction (or excessive formality and ridiculously complex wording). I think having that professional emphasis on the 1a criterion (as we've been emphasizing in FACs) would help people realize what kind of writing is expected. — Deckiller 11:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
For your creation of the FAR/FARC template. It's only fair I extend this favor, since I received one on the template that copied your design :) — Deckiller 11:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's for the FAR Urgents template, not an image. — Deckiller 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have it on my userpage. Like I said, I copied the design for User:Deckiller/FAC urgents, which has been up for a month or so. — Deckiller 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I also haven't figured out how to adjust the width. I think it depends on the length of the article names. I don't really follow the criteria; I usually follow a case by case basis. — Deckiller 23:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You're correct about the width. Right now the table calculates the width needed to accommodate the text being displayed, so if one table has shorter text, it will have a smaller width. If you want to force the two to have the same width, you can specify a width in the code. For example, where the code for the table starts class="toccolours" align="right", using class="toccolours" width="50%" align="right" instead will cause the table to take up 50% of the available horizontal space. That's obviously too much to be practical, but lets you see the results. Pagrashtak 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Pagrashtak. Let's keep this in mind. I can cope with different widths, I guess, but if someone wants to force the wider one, I don't mind. The more important issue is to get these boxes appearing in more places. Are there people who are willing to put them on the top of the user and talk pages? Perhaps a reminder on the talk page of FACs. Tony 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered combining the two? Pagrashtak 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Now there's an idea; what does Deckiller think? And Sandy, who updates the FAR/C one a lot. Tony 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content and FA[edit]

Tony, I find it curious that you are interested in clarifying the non-free content policy; everyone else with whom I have corresponded in FAC merely disregards what I have to say about it. I just started monitoring FAC a little while ago hoping I could help clear up copyright issues, especially with the issues that happened with Scooby-Doo and Cricket World Cup while they were on the Main Page. I'm not sure anyone is ready to actually have to respect copyrights. Maybe our work is fruitless? --Iamunknown 06:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm only interested in/capable of clearing up the language of the criteria. I see that as a foundation on which subsequently to make proposals for substantive change, if necessary. Tony 08:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well I've only been met with distaste thus far; apparently based on my failure to realize that a "weak oppose" is significantly different than an "oppose". Everyone is so uptight. --Iamunknown 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tamil language[edit]

Any last comment on this one? Marskell 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry if you think I was inappropriate for sectioning off your comment. I thought it would make it easier to respond point-by-point. I'm also fed up with the endless edit conflicts I've had today, which have been ever so frustrating. I'm just a passer-by at this FAC. At others, where I'm a nominator or co-nominator, I've sectioned off every serious objection or detailed comment in this manner, without anyone protesting. However, I tend to agree that it looks a little odd in this FAC as yours was the only one so-dealt with. Cheers, --Dweller 12:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Hey, your comments didn't upset me from the FAC but would you be kind enough to check the State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) article. I want the article to be ready for FA soon and your a great reviewer thanks. -- JA10 T · C 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your review which contributed to the Holden VE Commodore article being promoted to featured article status. Your dedicated attitude towards the subject is greatly appreciated. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: your Oppose on Pluto's FA page[edit]

Hello, I am Serendipodous. I am currently engaged in the push to have Pluto declared a featured article. As of right now, the article has seven statements of support and one of opposition. I would appreciate it if you could return to the article and provide a more in-depth critique. Once answered, I'm sure it will be the last hurdle before acceptance. I am pursuing this project essentially singlehandedly, so any issues you might still have can be addressed directly to me. I am a writer/researcher myself, and if my writing style is lacking in some way, I would appreciate advice on how to improve it. Thank you for your time. Serendipodous 09:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Simpsons[edit]


A while ago, The Simpsons was promoted to FA status despite your objections to the prose. It's up for Featured article review right now, so if you have some free time, you might want to pay a visit. Zagalejo 19:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Genesis (band)[edit]

Another one that's been hanging around FAR too long. Ceoil has done some work on it. Marskell 08:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian Thorpe[edit]

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ian Thorpe? There's a whole bunch of arm waving going on; I was hoping you could cut through it with something meaningful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

NFC criteria[edit]

I noticed you comment that you "wouldn't oppose a full revert". Why? The draft was posted for 10 days (and two days before that, in fact). This was announced twice on the talk page, with invitations for feedback and complaints. I spent a lot of time producing the new version; why would you revert it after I've done the right thing, going through a rather long consensus period.

To my logic, there is consensus if no one has complained or asked for changes under those circumstances. If not, what do you consider would be consensus? I even asked whether anyone wanted a different timeframe ... nothing.

Thanks for your edits; they're really good.

Tony 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to state the my edition wasn't necessarily an endorsement of the change.
Some of the concerns I've raised haven't been addressed. Did I missed something? Overall, I like the change. I would only keep backward compatibility with the numbering and, for a while, use a warning at the top explaining although the page's text has been recently drastically changed, no change in the policy was intended, and that any incoherence found should be automatically settled to the old version's meaning. --Abu badali (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I would expect the rejection of an article from FA to be done on the basis of a guideline, and I believe that it is only with knowledge of that we are expected to vote in the FAC. Can you, in all honesty, point out a guideline that is failed by that article? If so, I will discuss it and only it. I leave aside that you never wondered if there were any practical reasons for what I had done. Dahn 10:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Iridion 3D[edit]

Per your comments on the Iridion 3D FAC, I've given the article a fairly thorough copyedit and was wondering if you'd care to re-evaluate. Cheers, LankybuggerYell ○ 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shen Kuo article[edit]

Hey Tony, long time no see, PericlesofAthens here, how's it goin. :) First off, I want to thank you for your attention given to the Song Dynasty article, which is now at least Good Article status, and I hope one day will be lifted to FA status. However, as a sort of offshoot from that, I have edited and vastly improved the article on the contemporary Chinese scientist, statesman, diplomat, and author Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD). I have successfully brought Shen Kuo's article up to GA status, but it has recently failed as a FAC. I was wondering, if you are not too incredibly busy, if you would have a look at it in the following week. Any edits or suggestions for edits on the talk page would be greatly appreciated, as I do not think the League of Copyeditors will get to it anytime soon (considering how the Song Dynasty article has not even been touched by them yet). Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph FAC[edit]

(copied from FAC) Recent copyedit completed Hi Tony. Another copyedit of this article was recently done. [2]. Wondering if you could have another look. Cricket02 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese Aborigines[edit]


Thanks for the valuable observations. Some of the sentence work comes from trying to limit the info (it has been much longer). Feel free to copy edit in the body of the article as you see fit. You may be seeing things we are not and it would add to the entire flow. I would appreciate the help. Thanks again!Maowang 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: frogs[edit]

I'm not sure of a way to shorten an .ogg other than uncompressing, editing, then recompressing it. This would degrade the quality. --Russoc4 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I do have audacity, but i wasn't aware that it could edit the file without recompressing that which is already compressed. I won't be able to get to it now.. it's almost midnight. Perhaps tomorrow I can see what I can do with the file. --Russoc4 03:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Pittsburgh FAC[edit]

You left your comments related to the History of Pittsburgh FAC, but upon reading them, they appear to be intended for another article. Could you please make this correction to the History of Pittsburgh FAC page to clear up any confusion?PadreNuestro 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I fixed this one for you; I moved the comments to Mimi Smith where you apparently intended them. [3] [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

About and approximately[edit]

Heya. "Approximately" isn't as good as "about" WRT numerical estimates? — Deckiller 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just that the x word is kinda ugly and five syllables. About is just plain, and two. The ugly one conveys no additional or technical meaning. I might add it to the list in the 1a article, but I don't want to be too dogmatic about it (whereas some of the others in that list deserve to be binned forever). Tony 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Iridion 3D FAC[edit]

Concerns have been addressed. Could you please take another look? David Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Southeastern BC and daylight saving time[edit]

I responded to your query on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daylight saving time page. By the way, have you had time to read the article and decide whether you support or oppose it as a candidate? Right now it has only two votes and it could use more review. Anyway, thanks for the comment. Eubulides 00:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe[edit]

Hi Tony, I recently saw this article went on FAR and thought I'd try to save it. I've done a lot of work removing POV, adding info, and adding references but it still needs some copy-editing. Given your skills I was wondering if you could look it over and give it a run-through. Quadzilla99 07:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

System Shock FAC[edit]

Regarding your objection to System Shock, I'm not sure how to find copyeditors. I've tried asking User:TKD and User:Deckiller, but they've stopped taking copyediting requests. I posted a request more than two weeks ago with the League of Copyeditors, but haven't gotten a response. I was wondering if you had any suggestions on people I could ask for assistance? JimmyBlackwing 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to the list of FAs. There must be 20 games ones. I looked at the first one (3D thingo), and saw copy-editing by User:BACbKA. That took 90 seconds. You might spend longer identifying a priority list of the most likely to ask. Tony 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The article has undergone a copyedit courtesy of User:Zeality. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you took a look at the article, to see if it is now up to your standards. JimmyBlackwing 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Do you agree that Template:Unreferenced is poorly worded with that use of "any"? — Deckiller 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was reverted and referred to the talkpage. So it's just fine as "This article does not cite references or sources"? Shouldn't an "its" be included? — Deckiller 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I also think that "Material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time." is stronger as "Unreferenced material may be challenged and removed at any time". Do you agree? — Deckiller 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks much better without "at any time". You don't think "Material not supported by sources" should be shortened to "Unreferenced material"? Or is there some sort of deficiency in that wording that I'm not seeing? — Deckiller 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. So it should be "Unreferenced material may be challenged or removed"? Sorry for spending so much time on this; I just don't want to get blazed :) — Deckiller 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mac Pro FA question[edit]

I'm a little baffled by the entire FA process. I got a few comments, but they seemed pretty vague. I tried to incorporate what I could from them, adding an overview area for instance. But then the entire process just died out, it seems that the reviewers didn't examine the changes (it seems that way, I have no real idea of course). But then at the end you mentioned:

"Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the copy-editors. Get to know their work, and show them that you're familiar with it when you ask for a favour."

Again, confusion. Is there some sort of "out of band" process that keeps FA moving "in the real world"? IE, are there certain FA reviewers/copy-editors who's help should be brought in at the beginning of the process?

Maury 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tony, Regarding the Indonesian FAC, I've just realised you're the author of the guide for criterion 1(a), which I trawled through earlier this year. I didn't do it again recently, perhaps mistakenly, thinking that I was editing with all that imbedded in my head (for example, i find it very hard to use the word 'also' now!). It should be reviewed again for Indonesia. Thanks for your lengthy response, and any further help, or just direction, you can give will be most appreciated.

A general grammar question I've often wondered about is, when when should sentences be broken by mdashs and when should it be commas? For example, should we say Fossils, popularly known as the Java Man, suggest the Indonesian archipelago was inhabited by Homo erectus. or, Fossils—popularly known as the Java Man—suggest the Indonesian archipelago was inhabited by Homo erectus. Can provide or point me to examples of their proper use? regards Merbabu 02:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way, but don't use more than one pair per paragraph is my rule. Em dashes are a sharper boundary than commas. Em dashes are particularly useful in text that already has lots of commas. Tony 03:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, another general question: I was taught to not start sentences with the word "however", but to place it within the sentence. I notice this has been changed in a few places times by a recent (otherwise good) copy edit in Indonesia. Eg,

"Rising tensions, however, between the military and the Communist Party of Indonesia culminated in..."
There are good psychological reasons for indicating the angle of the sentence (WRT the previous text) at the start, and not interrupting the flow to do so in the middle. Tony 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

has become:

"However, rising tensions between the military and the Communist Party of Indonesia culminated in...".

What are your thoughts on this issue generally? (ie, maybe the above is not the best example chosen). Merbabu 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your latest FAC comments - Saturday[edit]

I've addressed your latest request for the article. I have further developed the mention of corruption in the economy section. [5]. Also, both nominal and PPP GDP/capita figures now - exist, plus they and total GDP have been updated for 2006. The request to also include "nominal per capita income" is not clear. Maybe you are saying we just need nominal and PPP - hope you can clarify this, cheers. :) Also, if you get a change, can you look at my question above about 'however'. thanks Merbabu 15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, i wanted to spent today (saturday) copy editing a bit myself with your guide - for my own benefit - and then I was going to on the look out for a 'fresh set of eyes'. I started going through your '1a guide' again (i did it maybe 6 months ago). I did not get to do such a ce - interrogating IMF GDP data takes longer than i thought! thanks, Merbabu 15:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

26 May[edit]

Hi Tony, you had concerns over prose throughout Indonesia and a number of more specific concerns (Javanese dominance, nominal vs. PPP GDP, corruption, etc) and they have since received a lot of attention. As for copyediting, I've gone through it a few times (commas, redundancy checks, etc), as have two 'external' editors. What do you think of it now? Irrespective of any prose issues, I believe that your specific concerns have been well addressed. Could you please reviews these and let the FAC page know? many thanks. Merbabu 05:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re Indonesia[edit]

Thanks for your comments on Indonesia - they made it a much better article and I myself learnt a fair bit. Following your comments we got a few 'external' copyeditors looking through the article. Your specific content related suggestions were also taken up and helped the article. Of course there is always room for improvement.

As for me, I am keen to spend more time on FAC now as a reviewer. I also have some other articles I'd like to work on and then nominate: U2 and my pet, Indonesian National Revolution. Also, one day I hope to get Indonesian architecture up to FA but it's not even GA standard yet, but the subject is broad and fascinating.

Any assistance/advice on these articles, and more importantly on improving writing skills in general, would be most appreciated. Hope to see you around. regards Merbabu 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. Can't wait for the architecture article. Tony 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey Tony. I'm in my Business Writing class; is it true that all grammatical styles require periods and commas to be inside the quotes? I always thought it could go either way, especially on a diverse site like Wikipedia. — Deckiller 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of grammar. I'm afraid I hate what I see as the illogical use of final punctuation within quotes when it closes off the whole sentence, not merely the quoted portion. It's the norm in North America (although not mandatory, I believe). The opposite is required, I think (not just the norm), by other anglophones, except for direct speech in fiction. I'd ignore people who tell you that you have to put them inside, but it's up to you. I change it where I find it on WP. Tony 00:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we took a grammar pretest just to see where everyone stands. I got like 8 out of 65 wrong, but most of those were because I'm comma happy and so used to the Wikipedian Manual of Style, which integrates international standards. Nevertheless, the instructor is very good, and I told her about Wikipedia and copy-editing. I need to be careful not to overstep my bounds. — Deckiller 02:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Either way, Wikipedia and your 1a guide will be a good supplement to this Business Writing class, which has already been one of the best I've taken. — Deckiller 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In business writing, the need for plainness, clarity and brevity is greater than ever. You have to fight to be read and understood in the business world. That's why business writing is more sectionalised, from subheadings down to bullets. Allows a variety of people in a business to read (or gloss over) each part. Tony 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to it. I just hope I don't lose too many points when I adhere to the WPMoS.
By the way, mind if I show her How to satisfy Criterion 1a and ask for her opinion? She also hates "due to the fact that" and "utilize" :) — Deckiller 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, there's hope 4 her yet. The article? Sure, it's in the public domain, being on WP. She might be insterested in the redundancy exercises. Perhaps I should develop a set of exercises on identifying and removing weasel words and tired phrases from business documents ... or perhaps YOU could?
The very next addition to exercises will be longer excerpts from which to identify redundancy. I think the existing show and tells are a good start, but don't test a key skill in improving WPian prose: spotting problems in larger windows of text. And then there's the problem of "the" for non-native speakers; keen to write a piece on that, plus exercises. Tony 05:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Tony, it's not public domain. It's licensed under the GFDL. By the way, our MOS mentions punctuation relative to quotations at WP:PUNC, if you haven't seen it. Pagrashtak 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manhattan[edit]

In going through the process of trying to improve the Manhattan article, taking it to GA status and making an attempt at FA, I have received many useful and productive suggestions for making this a better article. Your snide remarks were by far the least constructive of any of any of the comments I have seen in this entire process. I would suggest in the strongest terms that trying to treat this as a collaborative process in which derisive remarks are not used would be far more beneficial for the Wikipedia enterprise as a whole. Alansohn 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Alan—I'm sorry that you've reacted negatively to my review of the writing in the nomination. Perhaps I was a little blunt; I suppose some of my stock statements come from having nominators treat prose reviews half-heartedly or from those who feel that merely correcting the examples is enough. My remarks weren't intended to be soft and polite, but I meant no snideness or derision. When you nominated it, I presume you were prepared to have your work picked over and criticised; after all, you're seeking a gold-star endorsement of it. You should have little trouble finding good copy-editors to lend fresh eyes to the text. You've worked hard to bring it to nomination, so it's worth enlisting others to use their distance from the text productively. I'd be doing that myself if I'd nominated an article. Tony 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply. I have often been in the position of being too close to a document I have written to appropriately verify the article's content. While I have worked extensively on sourcing what was already in the Manhattan article and adding what was felt to be missing, I recognize that there were chunks of existing text that I had never really reviewed with a critical eye. I have been more than prepared to have this (and any other article) picked over in detail, but I was a bit taken aback by the tone of your remarks. I have already started to make the changes that you had pointed out, and I will continue to go through the article with a more critical approach to ensure that the content flows, makes grammatical sense and covers the topic in appropriate fashion. I would appreciate any further comments that you might have as to how the article might be improved. Alansohn 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Main page date requests[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/dates is just beginning; will need your help eventually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


I think the worst thing about this encyclopedia and you Tony, is that you're so good to it, but we can't give directly back to you.

If you've got a spare moment—and if only—would you mind taking a look at my latest piece? I've written up Roy Welensky in the last fortnight.

Cheers either way. michael talk 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Tony. I'll be rechecking the article before I put it to FAC. michael talk 07:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the error in the DST image[edit]

Thanks for catching the error about southeast British Columbia in Image:DaylightSaving-World-Subdivisions.png. Wow, you have sharp eyes! Also thanks for persisting and helping me to see the bug. It's fixed now. Eubulides 04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:White p.jpg[edit]

Hello Tony1, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:White p.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: exercises in textual flow. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Period.[edit]

Thanks for your comments on Film Booking Offices of America. Because of your interest in copy-editing, I think you should know that your comment "I suppose you'll insist on retaining the ungainly U dot S dot, in the face of all of the other initialisms in the article that are unencumbered with this old-fashioned format. Like: 'U.S.-based'. Hmmmph" is way off-base. "U.S." is the standard orthography for the abbreviation at virtually all American publishers and newspapers with which I'm familiar. Simply do a Google Book Search on that particular phrase that offended your sensibilities, limit it to books published between, say, 2004 and 2007, and see just how far from "old-fashioned" "U.S.-based" is (look at the actual book pages, not the Google search page snips). Run the same test on the New York Times archives. This is the standard style, among a wide variety of publishers that dispense with periods for most other abbreviations, as I do. I don't "insist" on it because I like it (or feel protective of the "ungainly"); I employ it because it's the current standard.—DCGeist 08:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

you dot es dot[edit]

I. just. expect. Americans. to. catch. up. with. the. rest. of. the. English.-speaking. world., which universally uses "US", as for NATO, PBS, etc. An increasing number of Americans have seen the light, no matter what the "authoritative" sources say. Apart from consistency with other initialisms and other English speakers, it's just so much neater. But if it's a religion to you, I.c.a.n.'.t.a.r.g.u.e. Tony 08:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of argument, it's a matter of fact. I'm ready to convert at any time. Just cite "An increasing number of Americans have seen the light." The extensive evidence I adduced suggests that's wishful thinking (aka U.m.a.d.e.i.t.u.p.). Hmmmmmmmmmmph (there's some U.S. excess for ya), indeed.—DCGeist 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite my irreversible familiarity with the text, I've addressed the rest of your points. Thanks again. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Seen the light? I mean on WP. But please don't embark on a mass program of reversion. Tony 23:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Query: Are the followers of the initialism-consistency light also plumping for eg and ie?—DCGeist 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The Plain English people promote "ie" and "eg", yet I was howled down by other professional editors for doing that. I think the clincher is that they're lower-case letters. Tony 07:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happier to see no use of eg, ie, e.g. or i.e. in the Encyclopedia: prose, please. Recently I saw a sentence in a FAC that started with E.g. ... is that compelling prose ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
("Egghead", they called me, for my eg that they reviewed.) Yes, it can be a hedgehog with the dots (just like you dot es dot, ahem); some of the e.g.,s and i.e.,s can be substituted by full spelling out, I agree, where brevity is not at issue. Tony
BTW, Dan, check out Wikipedia:Non-free content, which is heaving with Americans. I dare you to move over to the dark side. Tony 12:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've got 2-3 odds on you in your forthcoming cage match with Fvasconcellos: [6], [7].—DCGeist 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Fv is my friend. <grrrr ... > No cage matches between friends, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries, Sandy—I don't think I could take Tony :) I hate it when projectspace pages conflict with MOS. If I could edit MediaWiki, that annoying "US-registered charity" thing at the bottom of every page would be next. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My note to Fvasconcellos:

Please read what I said to DCGeist on this hedgehog that some Americans still insist on. I don't care what the "authorities" say; I'm disappointed that you're going around adding these ugly dots, probably out of some fervent sense of doing what is "correct". Well don't. Why? Because it's UGLY, it's inconsistent with the substantial, clear change in attitude throughout English (including AmEng) towards dotting initialisms and acronyms, and because it takes four rather than two spaces. The U.S. and the UK, we have now.

British usage has gone almost entirely against the Oxford Dictionary's insistence—still—on -ize- and its variants; usage out there is firmly -ise-. While this is not a matter of ugliness and inconsistency with similar forms, as you dot es dot is, the point is that language authorities should be taken only so seriously, especially when there are good reasons to go against them. That is how language changes.

Very disappointed in your actions. Tony 23:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if you're disappointed in my actions. If you object to this so strenuously and there is a decent, clear-cut rationale for change, then why don't you, as one of Wikipedia's foremost copyeditors (correct me if I'm wrong), "campaign" for an alteration in MOS—which is effectively Wikipedia's "house style"—to reflect this? I am not adding these ugly dots because I have a fervent sense of doing what is correct; I am doing so for consistency with internal style guidelines. I know full well that guidelines are not set in stone, but I happen to find this one, if not helpful (I've never given much thought to this), harmless. I'm not a "guerrilla" editor, these are not "drive-by" additions or pointless edits. I honestly don't want this to become an issue: I am simply trying to follow a guideline and help articles comply with it, and I am sorry if you find this disappointing :| Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Dead right I do. I think you should stop. In just a few matters, WP's MoS sucks, in my view, and I encourage people to breach it. A major issue is the linking of full dates, which I now discourage until the techs fix the conflated auto-formatting/linking problem. So you see, I think we should toe the line almost always. If there were no tension with rules, the language would be set in cement (more like French). My ideal would be if you reverted the results of your dotitis and ignored the MoS (which appears to ignore English-language usage of "US" outside North America (and increasingly inside it), and is thus undesirably biased on that matter). Tony 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
MOS: "Contemporary style omits many periods and spaces that were traditionally required. For example, PhD is preferred over Ph.D. or Ph. D., but do not omit periods from abbreviations that cannot be clearly identified as such without them." Tony 23:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, let no one say I'm averse to change. You make a fair point, although I am occasionally confused by the odd "US" ("'US military'? Us who—who the hell are you talking about?"). I must say, I don't think I'll be reverting a year and a half's worth of "dotitis", as you put it, that soon—I respectfully think that would be counterproductive in the extreme. As for metformin, thank you; that's less my doing than I like to think! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Longer examples[edit]

Thank you for that! My ability in picking out redundancies should improve after going through the more challenging exercises. I'm glad to see that you didn't forget. GizzaChat © 10:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


The article needs more just copyediting and references. It also needs to be analyzed if it is comprehensive -- keeping only the relavent and core details. I noticed some irrelavent text such as "Bhutan has no formal relations with the United States either...", "While the Bhutanese are free to travel abroad, Bhutan is seen to be inaccessible to foreigners." I would try and salvage the article next weekend. Not much time till then. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


instead of getting angry at me, how about you check the effects of your edits before making them, there is a preview button. If you want to you can change the template here. Ta, WikiTownsvillian 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I did in the edit summary, WikiTownsvillian 03:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No you didn't. Tony 07:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, no offence taken. WikiTownsvillian 01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the support at Talk:Australia I was beginning to think I was the only one despite the general consensus on the talk page :) WikiTownsvillian 13:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Well, well—it appears I've been displaying more expertise than I should :) I'm afraid I won't be able to authoritatively answer that, since I am not a physician. Any med/pharm expertise I may have stems from personal interest and my day job, which exposes me to clinical research, and where my favorite fields on Wikipedia happen to be my specialty. Anecdotally (and therefore inadmissibly here): (1) I know physicians who do routinely prescribe it and people who do take it; and (2) the Diabetes Prevention Program [8][9][10] found "lifestyle interventions" (weight loss and exercise, as you probably guessed) were basically twice as effective in preventing progression of IGT to diabetes.

On a side note, do you think I should note IANAD on my user page? If you thought I was a cardiovascular expert, I worry others may believe I'm more qualified than I actually am (although I wholeheartedly believe in the value of "lay" contributors to specialist fields on WP). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, you're not the only one who disagrees with MOS on certain aspects. I'm currently on a minor crusade to remove ® and ™ from drug articles, despite WP:MOSTM's guidance on the matter—can't think of a good reason for their use. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are legal reasons for including those symbols, and my gut instinct strongly says that there aren't, I support that move. IANAD on your page would bely the barriers that WP can at least blur, if not break down, between non- and semi-experts, and experts. After all, those who aren't daily practitioners have the advantage of strategic distance. My guess is that you translate for the legal process—courts, medical tribunals and the like. But you say "translation", not "interpreting", so I'm probably wrong. Whatever it is, you may be interested in listening online to, or podcasting, an ABC Radio program that aired just this morning; it looks at the role of interpreters in the court room. What a tangled web. [11] Tony 23:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Academia, actually (and corporate stuff in unrelated fields). That link seems very interesting—I'll have a listen. Tangled web indeed… Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
PS Metformin typically leads to weight loss itself, and it's very hard to get pre-diabetics to excercise and control their diet. Seems to involve positive feedback, that drug. Tony 06:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Tony, can you look at this dash problem from WikiProject Albums, in relation to WP:DASH and the article Kid A? It looks to me like albums is wrong? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tony,

You know how much I like your job on wikipedia. I am really happy you are back. We worked in the past together on the Belgium article the second time it got featured. Now the Belgium article is back to FARC again. You voted for its removal. Editors are currently working hard to improve the article. Please check their work. I believe you'll change your opinion quite soon. If not please precise it in order to help us! Thanks Vb 06:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference formatting is in need of extensive work, which I would be willing to help on if the prose were up to snuff; otherwise, I'm a remove also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a look tomorrow morning. Tony 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Wouldn't it save everybody (you included) a lot of time if you just corrected those rather minor prose deficiencies you use as examples yourself? If you're so sure about these mistakes that you'll actually object on account of them it seems odd to take the time to write so much about them. To point out the error in a phrase like "a 3-film contract" (in GoldenEye), objecting on account of it and other prose doesn't strike me as being efficient for anyone. Why not just fix the examples, post the diff and then write a short summary of the types of errors that you believe are still plaguing the article?

Peter Isotalo 09:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I could do that, and have in a few cases; and you're right, it might be quicker all up. I guess that explicating the issues on the FAC page has advantages, and requires the nominator(s) to commune closely with their work by having to fix the examples themselves.
They're not "rather minor" deficiencies, anyway. They're symptomatic of poor writing, just as lots of little editing glitches in a film show unacceptable production values. Tony 12:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly constructive to describe an entire article as being symptomatic of poor writing and then tell nominators that they themselves have to scour Wikipedia for the elite copyeditors who might be able to fix those problems.

Peter Isotalo 14:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um ... why is that not constructive? I'm not your private, free, copy-editing slave, and if you don't want to generate that kind of response, don't claim this "minor deficiencies" rubbish. Nothing annoys reviewers more.
I said nothing about scouring or elites. I provided a suggestion as to how you might locate the collaborators you clearly need. Tony 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion you provided was to go look for unknown people to fix largely unknown problems. It's a solution just begging to be ignored...

Peter Isotalo 15:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cougar. Remember, if you see a cougar, don't run. Marskell 13:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re your lost connection: is there anything systemic you can sum-up quickly? I'm also curious your opinion on upper case. Marskell 05:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Surface weather analysis FAC[edit]

Curious if you'd had a chance to look at the article lately and to check if you're still in opposition to FAC. Thegreatdr 13:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Nice edit to the MoS, one point: you strengthened the wording to the guideline for not starting a section with "a", "an", or "the", etc. Which I agree with, but do you think its necessary to leave that it's acceptable in some cases? Or do you think this is implied? (For instance, a section named after a movie in a director's article). Quadzilla99 06:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, you would probably know better than me. Solid edit though, I'll bet you could probably shave 25% off of the entire MoS and still convey the same meaning. Quadzilla99 06:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I fixed the above post a little late, I was speaking of the entire MoS. Quadzilla99 06:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
What suggestion is that? Cutting the last few points? If that's the suggestion, I wouldn't have a problem with it personally. Also these two could probably be combined somehow:
  • pronouns and repetitions of the article title are avoided;
  • the wording is not identical to that in any other heading or subheading in the article."
  • pronouns, repetitions of the article title, and identically titled section headers are avoided;
you could probably do better. Quadzilla99 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Or: pronouns, repetitions of the article title, and identical wording in multiple headings are avoided; Quadzilla99 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dashes: em versus en[edit]

Thanks for your comment at my page. Kewl, huh? I beg to differ.

I dislike spaced em dashes in sentence punctuation because they separate words way too much. Especially in full justification, since it will often happen that the spaces are stretched, and the combination of two stretched spaces and a long dash is a horror to behold. The effect of a spaced en dash is more moderate. I dislike unspaced em dashes because, unlike any other standard sentence punctuation, they visually tie words together (where of course dashes are supposed to separate, not tie). Especially, they locally disable the separating effect of full justification, so you can get a line with wide spaces in which the words flanking the dash are too close – closer, sometimes, than any other pair of words, though the logic of the punctuation requires that they be further apart than other pairs, not closer. So my order of preference: spaced en dash; spaced em dash; unspaced em dash. I find it much more comfortable to read books from Penguin, Routledge, and Cambridge because of their use of the spaced en dash.

Note that I have referred to "sentence punctuation", above. One of the few things I like about the AGPS manual (you know the one I mean, I'm sure) is that, alone among major style manuals, it now divides punctuation into sentence and word punctuation. I like this, especially since I independently started doing the same myself, a few years ago. Word punctuation marks are apostrophe and hyphen (and occasionally, as you know, en dash instead of hyphen). In presenting a system of punctuation, especially pedagogically, it makes a great deal of sense to respect this difference in function.

Another way in we might disagree: I am a staunch advocate of the serial comma, and use it always whenever it is at all viable. I agree with the Oxford Style Manual's reasons for this. You are not so enamoured of it, I think.

Did you look again at User talk:Mscuthbert? I have commented there on what you wrote. I hope we can all have a useful and dispassionate discussion of 6/4 chords there – or somewhere else, perhaps.

– Noetica♬♩Talk 11:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My response:

It's just that there are so many commas in technical writing already, and the Oxfords seem to unnecessarily disjoint when not necessary for disambiguation. The hedgehog list at the start of the Australia article is an ideal example. Don't you think it's easier to read without the Oxfords? Tony 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On en dashes with spaces—well, you present a good case, and while I still prefer unspaced em dashes (the unspaced are sharper visually, to my eye, which supports the function of the em dash), I'm having to change my view on spaced en dashes as a substitute. Hoary was at me on the same issue a while ago.

And will you kindly give your advice on my (too hasty) changes to the previous requirement that all equivalent names to the title subject at the start of an article also be in boldface? Sandy's not happy at the retro-alterations that will be made necessary, and thinks the combinations of boldface followed by italics and/or quotes to be just as messy. I'd prefer no highlighting after the initial bolding. Is a compromise possible, in which the formatting of the equivalent items is optional? See talk page of MoS? Tony 15:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


My business writing textbook has half a chapter dedicated to plain english, positive wording, and misplaced formality; it's great. I agree that the MoS needs a facelift, especially WP:FICT. Heck, WP:FICT needs a full rewrite.

By the way, what's your opinion on WP:DYK? — Deckiller 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine; I'd still express instructions in the indicative. Tony 00:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, I meant the specific DYK entries. I've noticed that some of them have minor redundancy issues; Art is excellent at proofreading entries, but he usually stays away from full rewrites or chopping words. — Deckiller 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm going to hold off on copy-editing until my work with WP:FF is finished; we are revolutionizing fictional coverage. — Deckiller 21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope there'll be mention of resisting the urge to insert lots of "then" in stories. Tony


I can't believe you slapped a copy-edit tag on the MoS. You've got some brass ones. Bravo. Quadzilla99 08:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also badly in need of a massage. Too much time hunched over a screen... Marskell 08:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have tagged a normal article unless far worse; but the MOS is supposed to be a model for us all, and as such is an embarrassment if it doesn't practise exactly what it preaches. Despite its privileged status, it has been allowed to descend into bloated, inconsistent language in too many places. The italics versus quotes is one such issue. Tony 10:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. As I said before, a skilled copy-editor like yourself could probably trim at least 25% off of that thing. Quadzilla99 10:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Political history of medieval Karnataka[edit]

Hi. Could you please suggest someone who could copy edit this article the way you think it should read. Since every editor has his/her own style, it may be difficualt to find someone who satisfies everyone.ThanksDineshkannambadi 14:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do I sign?[edit]

Where do I sign to "vote" on the issue of American vs. British spelling? Not that the end result should in any way be based on a vote, but instead on logical insight, but I think a vote could help clear the air somewhat.

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Calling_for_a_movement_to_eliminate_American_spelling_on_Wikipedia. I started the section as a counter to the ridiculous stuff going on above on that page. Tony 05:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Brits and Americans — two people separated by the same language. -Shaw (An Irishman) Quadzilla99 11:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated note to myself: [12] Tony 03:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia MMORPG...[edit]

In the Wikipedia MMORPG, copy-editors are like Priests and Clerics. Everybody needs them, but users often think they are available every second to "cure them (or their prose)". Others seem to think of them as slaves...

A famous line on Ragnarok Online is "heal me plz". Here, it's like "copy-edit plz". :) — Deckiller 14:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

TS epidemiology[edit]

Tony, do you have time to give a quick look to recent changes and additions at Tourette syndrome#Epidemiology? I'm falling behind in real life and in everything else I do at Wikipedia, because I've spent the better part of the last four days trying to satisfy User Eubulides' claims that the Epidemiology section is "muddled" (didn't seem "muddled" when you, TimVickers and Colin ran through it prior and during FAC, but whatever). I plan to add a couple of paragraphs (on the Kurlan study, and on general factors affecting prevalence estimates in TS — after my pending travel), but can you correct anything that you feel needs attention before I travel this week? Would that epidemiology in TS were as straightforward as some other conditions, so all could understand it. Thanks so much, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I made an adjustment to answer your inline query, in case you want to see if that fixed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I've got a small query about the change to spell out numbers as words. I'm familiar with the rule about spelling the low numbers but thought that consistency was also a factor (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers in words). There are some phrases that mix the two:

  • "A study of 1,596 eight- to 17-year-old children"
  • "rate of one in a thousand" ... "rate of 10 in a thousand"
  • "about 5 to 10 people in 10,000" ... "three to eight in a thousand"

Did that "5" escape your attention? Should the "10" be spelled out? Within a single range (8–17) would it not be better to use one style? If your own style is at odds with the MOS, can you explain what internal rules you are following. Thanks, Colin°Talk 08:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The 5 did escape my attention, or perhaps I wondered myself while making those changes whether it wold have been better to retain the single-digit numerals. I think whatever is easiest to read, in this case. I balk at "1,596 8-", however. To be consistent, I guess "five to 10 people in ten thousand". I think thousand is easier to read spelt out in this context, but there's no particular rule about that, I think. I don't mind a spelled out "ten". What does Sandy think? The en dash will work only with two numerals. In fact, would it be easier to read as "5–10 in ten thousand", etc.? Tony 08:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "A study of 1,596 children aged 8–17-years-old". I'm not sure about how to correctly write those hyphens and dashes here. Colin°Talk 08:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I think if the reader is being asked to compare two ratios (1:1000 vs 10:1000) then the format should be the same, even if one of the numbers is above the digit/spelling threshold and the other number below. So, I'd go for "ten in a thousand" in the first example. I'm not sure about "five to ten people in ten-thousand". Does that look bad? Hmm. Colin°Talk 08:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Now I think that "5–10 in 10,000" is best. There's some latitude here, though.
Trying to catch up to you two in other time zones :-) I don't like the mixing of spelling out vs. digits (but I'm math/engineering not English/prose, so I could be wrong :-); if it's OK and doesn't violate anything, I think we should stick to one style throughout, rather than moving to spelling out when that splits the style. I'd like to get rid of the 1,596 and the ages all together; I find it burdensome and boring to introduce too much detail about individual studies into the articles, but Eubulides wants that level of detail. I thought a large study of school-age children did the job quite nicely, but Eubulides thought "large" was a Peacock term there. I'm afraid we're losing clarity here. I'll see if I can find a source that calls it "large". Not sure how to fix this, because Eubulides wants more detail than I like, and he also wants numbers reported in a certain way, so it's become A Big Deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Large" is just fine here; it's what scientists use to mark studies as statistically reliable and important, when they mention them in summary form. It's the right word. I agree that the ages of the school children are not worth stating unless there's something unusual about them - does it matter that they weren't just high-school-age children? Tony 02:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, age matters a LOT in TS studies. Tics onset at about six to seven, peak at eight to twelve, and decline through adolescence, typically gone by adulthood. So, you get different prevalence rates depending on the age of the sample. I'm not convinved the Kurlan study is statistically "large"; it set out to be, but got only a 10% response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so it's not 1596, but more like 160; large no way. Keep age, then. Tony 04:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No, he was going for 16,000 and got 1,600. Larger studies are 4,000 and 18,000; he didn't make it to that level, and in TS, it would take more than 1,600 to be "large". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The original number (16000) seems irrelevant to me. 1600 seems large, I must say; to make a case that it's not large, you'd have to explain how the sample was significantly variegated. In any case, were the p-values way less than 0.05? Tony 04:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think he's got a p=0.01, but the way he mixes variables in the text, I'm not certain (he's comparing two groups, special ed and regular ed, so I'm not certain that the p-value applies to the prevalence estimate for each group, or the fact that there's a significant difference between groups. I hate the way he writes... feels like he has something to hide. He puts one p-value after both numbers and the words "compared with". Then, he has a table where the p-value is footnoted, but not clear if that note applies to one number or the entire line.) Another reliable source in TS epidemiology called a sample four times Kurlan's "relatively large", and indicates that Kurlan set out to do a large study but only got 10%, so I don't think I can get away with calling this one large, especially since he acknowledges problems in his sample with selection bias. My personal opinion is that he got lucky and his prevalence numbers will turn out to be right over time, but he draws some very faulty conclusions about TS because his sample is biased towards severe cases and misses mild cases, but that's just my 2 cents — haven't seen a reliable source say that. His sampling method guaranteed that he'd miss mild cases of TS, so even though his sample is skewed towards special ed children who had tics, which would overstate the numbers, he missed mild TS, which would understate his numbers, so I personally think his errors balance out to the right number on prevalence, but he draws other bad conclusions about TS people because he missed the mild ones and got those whose parents knew they had problems, or whose children also had ADHD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a worry. Does the text throw doubt on this source? Tony 07:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No, just provides context for the numbers. Kurlan (the source) is a heavy hitter, well-recognized expert in TS, has served on the Medical Advisory Board. His numbers are within the range being shown by numerous studies. His work accomplished a number of things no other study has done, so is noteworthy on that score (he used well trained clinicians to evaluate for tics, rather than relying on questionnaires or screening tools or reviews of history). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Round four[edit]

I've tried to work out all the issues in my sandbox. This version clears up the subtle errors that have been introduced or proposed in recent edits/drafts, adds additional info about the problems in TS studies, uses the order I prefer (introducing concepts before the numbers, so numbers are viewed in context) and includes some new data and sources Colin found. Colin also provided feedback to help tighten the wording, but there are still some areas of concern. Would you mind giving it a copyedit pass? I'm confused about colons and semi-colons (as always). Editor Eubulides proposes colons in some places where I think you use semi-colons, and I'm not clear on the difference, so you can check them carefully? Also wondering if you think sentence length is OK everywhere. Also, we seem to have settled on one style for reporting prevalence numbers. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re "Have I copy-edited the wrong bit?". Yes. Darn. It is the bit below the line under the "Rebuild, repair" section. Like Sandy, I'm not sure about the semi-colons and sentence length. I'm pretty sure there should be a colon after "once thought to be rare" rather than a semi-colon. My inclination, since the sentences are so full of facts, is to avoid very long sentences held together with semi-colons. I want to avoid "choppy prose" too. Colin°Talk 11:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Darn, Tony, I'm sorry my message wasn't clear and you lost time on the wrong version; it looks like you've now been through the right one. I'll have a look as soon as I've had coffee. Thanks so much, and I'm sorry for the trouble. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave it another pass; I had to change some of your wording back ("identified with", since they aren't always officialy "diagnosed", even after the studies identify them) and tried to clear up educational vs. medical intervention. I also added a few sentences to clear up a couple of subtle things that were still bugging me (you might want to review comments in my edit summaries). Would you mind taking another look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved it to Talk:Tourette syndrome#New draft; that's the best I can do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Herne Bay, Kent FAC[edit]

Hi. Could you have another look at the Herne Bay, Kent article when you have time, as some more copy-editing has now been done? Thanks. Epbr123 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He withdrew his five noms because some "sad bastard" opposed them all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I would've opposed them all also per your reasoning, but I got accused of doing one oppose as a vengeful way of things. Oh well.. just wish the editor didn't take things so personally. LuciferMorgan 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Usually, that indicates something :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Tony, I haven't yet gotten to TS this morning, but in going over Schizophrenia for the FAR (what a ton of work to be done there), I remembered something. The changes at WP:MOS are going to have to be reflected at WP:MOSBOLD. Some people use bolding all over the place, and I think you've tightened up the wording now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not much; just given people the OK not to bold alternative names. And there's another issue I haven't yet raised there; it says to use italics sparingly for emphasis; the same should be true of bolding, I think, don't you? Probably the best place to state this is in the same place as for the opening topic bolding, yes? No section is dedicated to bolding as is the case for italics in the MOS. Tony 02:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no discrepancy with MOSBOLD. Tony 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Good; in general, I dislike lots of different font faces and types for any reason (they look messy), if not absolutely necessary. MOSBOLD mentiones a few instances where it's OK to bold; I hope that's it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice on FAC renomination[edit]

BackupHDDVD has undergone a partial rewrite since the original FA nomination. Since you were the most active participant in the FAC discussion, would you mind taking a look and letting me know what its current problems that would hold it back in a potential renomination are/whether the rewrite solved any of the old issues or just added more? Noclip 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Chords, functions, and the tyranny of space and time[edit]

Thanks for the note at my page. Yes, let's back off from any sort of confrontation about those six-four chords. There are strong arguments on both sides, and the literature yields support for both. The literature also includes support for a more nuanced and catholic view of the matter. That's all I maintain: I am not a partisan for one side or the other. (Recall my wish for consistency at WP:MOS, when I gritted my teeth and changed en dashes to em dashes so that our manual could provide an example of consistency. There's enough pig-headed bigotry around the place for us to take a stand against, without adding to it.)

I can't do much more at the moment, because I am not at my usual location and have my time occupied with other things. I'll get back into dialogue (not debate) about these things and some others of interest at WP:MOS, in a week of so.

– Noetica♬♩Talk 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the long reply at my page. Let's just continue the discussion there, to keep it all in one place. When I can get back to it, that is (see my interim reply, there). Also, do give some thought to conducting all of this in a more central and public place, so that everyone concerned can participate and we can use the outcome at the several articles affected by the issue.
– Noetica♬♩Talk 03:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm continuing to conduct all dialogue with you at my talk page, to keep things together. That OK?
– Noetica♬♩Talk 07:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

God Hates Us All[edit]

Hello Tony, a few days ago you opposed God Hates Us All at FA on crteria 1a and 2b, myself and other editors have given it a copyedit, and i was hoping you could take another look. If you find more errors i will contact more people to give it a ce, and i have two questions - which method do you prefer -

  • Slayer began writing lyrics or Slayer began to write lyrics
Probably the second. But is this a case of "startitis"? I'll have to check the article.
  • The band was pleased with Hyde's work on "Bloodline," hiring him to produce the entire album or The band was pleased with Hyde's work on "Bloodline," and hired him to produce the entire album.

Thanks for your time. M3tal H3ad 08:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The second is better. Tony 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking at Vagrant Story[edit]

Since you are always able to deliver the point that overlinking is a problem, can you back me up on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vagrant Story? — Deckiller 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. E-mail coming your way later today. — Deckiller 13:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC[edit]

Hi Tony. As a FAC somehow seems incomplete without the input of Wikipedia's copy-edit supremo, could I possibly ask you to have a quick glance over this article? Thanks, if you have time. TimVickers 16:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you are far too kind: I have many detractors and lots to learn. I'll have a look later. Tony 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What happens if "can" is removed? - "Can" is essential, humans in Europe are the same species as humans in America. This includes potential matings that do not occur in nature.

The point I was trying to make is that if two individuals are geographically isolated, for example two fish in different lakes, they will not interbreed. However, they are the same species if they can interbreed if you were to bring them into contact. Saying "can" is an attempt to make the more general statement about biological capability. The point is usually made by saying "interbreeding or potentially interbreeding organisms", but this seemed unnecessarily cumbersome for the lead. TimVickers 14:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

...four types of base... Shouldn't this be "four types of bases", as the types are plural? TimVickers 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: 13 December 2006 Template:Wikify edit[edit]

Wow, that was almost six months ago. The edit request you're looking for was this. The change was a clarification of the template, which included the addition of a few links, and an alteration of the css class used for the template. Please explain which two links are "at odds with each other" and I will look into that. Note that a few diffs later, the link to WP:LEAD was removed.

If you have any further questions, or more importantly if you disagree with the changes I made, which seems to be the case, please to not hesitate to be upfront with your concerns by leaving me another message on my user talk page. Thanks. ZsinjTalk 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Followon question on the AfD voting templates TfD[edit]

The deletion of the templates would by default remove the icons everywhere they are used. If you want the images on the Manual of Style, you could add them without using the template (by writing the template's coding in directly). --ais523 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The coding that you put on my Talk page will be unaffected by the result of the TfD. (The image would only be removed if the page in question were edited or if the image itself were deleted.) Hope that helps! --ais523 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle featured article review[edit]

The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Jonel | Speak 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone[edit]

I put the article up for FAC, and a couple of editors have indicated that they would like an independent copyedit by an user that has not edited the article before, so I wondered whether you would like to do so. You're a pretty good copyeditor, and you probably will find things that I missed or that were added while I wasn't looking. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whitstable FAC[edit]

Hi. When you've got time, I wonder if you could please have a look at SandyGeorgia's comments on the Whitstable FAC. Some expert advice is needed to clear-up a few grammatical issues, many involving the use of hyphens. Your help would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Epbr123 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, there are some grammatical issues there that I'm not sure about; things that look "off" to me, but very well could be fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

MoS overhaul[edit]

Hey there. Let me just say you've been doing some pretty excellent work. I see that nothing is final yet and I'm not sure how you feel about barnstars, so, here you go :) I echo Quadzilla's sentiments above, and keep up the good work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tony, my rewrite of WP:FICT is almost complete. It's at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction); however, it needs extensive copy-editing. Since you're also working on the MoS, I'd be happy if you could help with the copy-edit. Thanks. — Deckiller 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[At my page, but urgent so I put it here also:]
What? I don't understand your new fourth point at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dashes)#Proposal_for_four_substantive_alterations. SMcCandlish is all mixed up on this, despite having made other, useful comments. Seems to misunderstand about spaced en dashes as quite standard sentence punctuation, and wrong about alleged misuse of parenthetical, etc. Your own fourth point is not well-formed. Note the exact wording of the article as it stands (with my underlining):
  • Spaced en dashes – like this. (Note: an unspaced en dash is properly used to indicate a range of numbers; unspaced en dashes should not be used for the parenthetical or colon-type uses, as discussed above.)
But your point has this:
Removal of proscription on using spaced en dashes as an alternative to em dashes,...
My suggestion: revert your recent change that added the fourth point; re-read SMcCandlish carefully; think; re-edit as appropriate. (Sorry if that sounds patronising: in haste, to rectify things quickly.)
– Noetica♬♩Talk 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Tony, I meant User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction), not the current page :) — Deckiller 04:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. I saw you copy-editing the current policy, so I didn't know. — Deckiller 13:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I said it was at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction), but I had linked WP:FICT in the preceeding sentence, so that's probably what happened :) — Deckiller 13:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Definitely; however, this is a touchy subject for some, so I don't think a few cases of "should" will hurt. 14:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should try it. It might gain more authority that way. — Deckiller 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vague request[edit]

In the FAC for 1080° Snowboarding you gave me some help with the lead, and since then the article has had work done to it. Your finishing quote was "Not professionally written, neither here nor throughout." Since you wrote that, I have since acted and done some of your excersises improving and focusing the prose. At the urging of BQZip01, I converted the passive voice sentences in the article to active voice. I'm still looking for the manual of the game, but I was wondering if you have any more suggestions regarding the prose. I'm not asking for a copyedit or specific changes, and I know you're a busy man, but if you have time, could you give me some general tips, even on it's FAC page if you like (like section X and Y have structure problems etc). It would be appreciated.--Clyde (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the FAC was closed, but I plan on nominating it again sometime in the future, and would like your approval if I do.--Clyde (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
So it's really down to tinkering and specific problems that may arise in the FAC (whenever that is)?--Clyde (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

United States[edit]

I'm very glad you've decided to weigh in on the article. It doesn't fall to me to withdraw its nomination or not, but I have been working hard to improve it for the sake of all the good peoples of the world. There are two comments you made in your summation that could be of great help if you cared to expand on them in the context of the FAC page:

(1) "[N]eglect of essential information": If you could offer a few specifics, that would be of aid in dealing with those opposed to any more additions purely on principle.

(2) "It's overlinked": Obviously. Way. I've been wanting to engage in a search-and-destroy mission for a week now, but without backup I've anticipated that would provoke more flak than it's worth. If you could analyze just one concrete chunk--perhaps the Geography section--for unnecessary links, that would be more than enough support for me to do a major cleanup.

Best, Dan.—DCGeist 05:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry to butt in, but I'd back up anyone wanting to reduce unnecessary links. In fact, I've already mentioned it on the FAC page, but it seems only the ones in the lead I mentioned as examples got removed, rather than a sweep of the whole document. Admittedly though, the lead seemed to be the worst of it. Merbabu 05:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MoS Naming Conventions[edit]

Hi Tony. Please undo that revert. The link was already there, but we still get people who apparently don't know much about bird species naming conventions, and don't bother to take the time to look it up, posting queries on Wikiproject:Birds. The latest was someone who was insistent that we were violating MoS, and that we either change our naming scheme or edit the MoS, so I edited MoS to make it clearer. Without the quote, the MoS doesn't say that it's up to each wikiproject to define their own consensus-style. Fredwerner 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A step in the right direction. How about this (below). Are standards set by academic societies a problem for Wikipedia?
  • Common (vernacular) names have been a hotly debated topic, and it is unresolved whether the common names of species start with a capital. As a matter of truce, both styles may be acceptable (except for proper names). Where used in an article title, a redirect from the alternative form is created.
Some WikiProjects have reached consensus on rules for capitalization. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds uses capital names for bird species' common names, following the official lists of species names set by regional academic associations, and accepted by almost all ornithologists, authors of field guides, and other professionals.
Fredwerner 05:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I took your advice again, pared the MoS section way down, very close to your original suggestion I think? I also posted a lengthy explanation on the discussion page there (I don't feel the need to propose anything longer). Check 'em out and tell me what you think. Fredwerner 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Point 8: endash vs. minus sign vs. hyphen[edit]

Yeah, I reckon I could've been clearer wrt this point ... or more correctly ... these points.

Yes, my first point was "since we have a minus sign, why not insist on its use for minus signs and operators"? I feel that your text might be read as if it were suggesting the use of the endash for a minus sign as opposed to the actual minus sign but why not use the actual minus sign? Of course, this is not really what your saying but it could be read that way. Moreover, why even mention the use of the endash as a minus sign? Why not, instead, encourage the use of the actual minus sign?

My second point really only comes into play when one is doing calculations with numbers as one might when using a template such as {{convert}}. The only thing that the software seems to recognise as a minus sign for this purpose is the hyphen. Of course, this will only apply to a small proportion of the minus signs in WP but there's consistancy to consider and it might even be worth noting that those to which it applies and those to which it does not can change.

Overall, though, the changes to this section, like the others which you've initiated, to me seem a great improvement. Keep up the good work. Jɪmp 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, neither the minus sign nor the endash work. If you want to perporm subtraction or you want a negative value in a calculation, you have to use the hyphen. Jɪmp 04:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

FA reviews[edit]

I took a few minutes to copy these words, because I think they will give you a smile:

  • "copyedit"
  • "fresh eyes"
  • "I'm concerned"
  • "much more work"
  • "poor prose"
  • "professional"
  • "redundancies"/"redundant"
  • "run-through"
  • "someone else"
  • "thorough"

This will make you chuckle:

"I think this needs a good copyedit by fresh eyes, because I'm concerned that it needs much more work, has poor prose, and is not of a "professional" standard. There are lots of redundancies, and it needs a good (and thorough) run-through by someone else. :) andreasegde 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh! This is a bit strange. :)

"This is just a few sentences. Needs hours' of work...". Tony 05:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yer sounding like a Brit-Cockney! :) andreasegde 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this[edit]

[13]. I only see a couple errors in this anon's copy-editing (mostly stylistic). Seems a bit old-school though (I.E. replacing "is often" with "often is" and forming lengthy transitions). Could we have another great copy-editor here? — Deckiller 19:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for starting the copy-edit of my MoS draft. I know it's poorly written; they're mostly ramblings from a burnout Wikipedian (me). I'll try to polish it up; you know, the 'ol "clean the house before the maid arrives". :) — Deckiller 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammar nitpick[edit]

You are the master of commas, so what do you think? [14]. Excessive? Or is being the grammar nazi good in this case? — Deckiller 06:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it reads much better that way and avoids the debate over commas and conjunctions :) — Deckiller 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:FAC squabble[edit]

I've made the changes you requested. I'm not sure about the lead though. I'm worried that now the article might be repetitive.--Paaerduag 00:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ortoiroid people - Up for speedy[edit]

A tag has been placed on Ortoiroid people, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Lwarf Talk! 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag, but don't be surprised if someone else puts the tag back on. --Lwarf Talk! 11:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WOW!!! Look at the article now you were right! --Lwarf Talk! 04:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

MOS pronunciation[edit]

Tony, you may want to have a look at Phonetic transcription#Narrow vs. broad transcription. Your query on the IPA talk page was removed by another editor as unrelated to the article itself. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad the link was appropriate. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hyphen question[edit]

Tony, do you have time to look at this question about hyphenation? Schizophrenia has come together nicely during its FAR; you might want to peek. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I've looked at that one. I'd certainly recommend the standard vanilla hyphenation: first-rank symptoms. But I'll leave this one to you.
See my page for other matters.
– Noetica♬♩Talk 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, and always, see my page.
– Noetica♬♩Talk 00:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Brown FAC[edit]

I've made several edits to the article recently in response to feedback from the FAC if you would be willing to re-look it. Thanks! CLA 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, Qp10qp has gone through the article for me. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks. DrKiernan 06:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad mood[edit]

Stress = bad mood = ranting:


Deckiller 16:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: my 6/4 mediation request[edit]

You're welcome. ^demon[omg plz] 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: 6/4[edit]

Hi Tony, thanks for your message. Whereas I agree with you that V6/4-5/3 is the best way to analyze that harmonic phenomenon, and that there should be more equal representation of both sides of the argument on Inversion (music) particularly, I have been following the argument at the aug6 page as well and agree with some others that Wikipedia is not an educational tool, merely an informative one. Since there are so many widely-recognized sources that use "I6/4", it cannot simply be discredited, no matter how foolish you or I think it is. Simply removing the picture is going to cause all sorts of strife no matter how well-meant your edit is; instead, I like your idea of putting up another one that presents the other (better) analysis, or replacing the current one with an image that shows both possible (and again, both widely-accepted) analyses. maestro 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's just courting disaster to take down the picture, whether or not it's the neutral thing to do--I mean, that's evident already. I can create the graphic if you'd like? maestro 21:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been swept up in some other stuff. It's still on my to-do list. maestro 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert Gilbert[edit]

On User talk:Bobo192, Tony1 said:
Thanks for cleaning up; didn't know what was going on there.

Hi there. I get the feeling that either the article once belonged somewhere else, or some disambiguation notice had been put on the main Robert Gilbert page... or something similar. So long as it is all fixed now, that is good.

Thank you for notifying me that everything is working. Bobo. 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

Info-icon.svg A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Analytical notation for 6/4 chords.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC).


Hi Tony. Thanks for your assistance on Indonesia - i actually think we can still improve that article, and I will get back you for advice. However, I writing today to seek your advice—even direct assistance—on U2. A few of us want to have a 'proper' go at FAC and I suspect prose will be our biggest concern and we need fresh eyes (i say proper as it's had a few half-*ssed 'drive by' FAC nominations from people who have never edited the article).

It would be great if you yourself could do a thorough copyedit, and advise on the article. Or if not, point us in the direction of a few alternative sources of assistance. Having a musical background myself, I know that musicians often have tastes that extent broadly far beyond their own area of expertise - thus, perhaps being an important contemporary musical article, U2 may appeal to you. kind regards, Merbabu 12:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ha ha - re your knowledge of contemporary music, i don't believe it. thanks for you attention - if you get a chance over the weekend, it would be great - even just a couple of suggestions if a copyedit is out of the question. Merbabu 13:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, have you read any of Don Watsons books on language? Eg, Death Sentence? I had a real laugh with that one, and another of his whose title i forget. Merbabu 13:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Niel Stuart[edit]

Apologies if my previous reply came across as harsh, it was not attended as such but I was very tired. I have now conducted a full copyedit of the article and would welcome your further input on it. The problem may simply be that having been so closely involved in writing this piece I now have difficulty seeing the wood for the trees as it were. Any outside help would be greatly appreciated. Thankyou and all the best.--Jackyd101 04:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I offended you, it was not my intention and neither did I mean to discredit your opinion. I have replied in full at the FAC, but I wanted to thankyou in person for your participation and make sure you were not offended by my comments. All the best,--Jackyd101 14:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem, Jack. I'm pretty busy at the moment—otherwise, I'd take a greater interest in FAC. Tony 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the Ronald Niel Stuart article has been relisted at FAC since we last spoke, and several other editors have helped me to conduct a thorough copyedit which I feel has greatly improved the article's quality. If you have the time might you consider looking over it once more and giving an opinion? If not, no worries and all the best.--Jackyd101 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou or your help with this article, which has now passed FAC.--Jackyd101 13:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


I deleted a bunch of wiki mailing list stuff and spam yesterday, but it was topped at 820, not 999. Odd...— Deckiller 02:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pop and rock music[edit]

You actually might like a genre called Progressive rock. It's actually not for simpletons like those crappy, 4/4 time, 2 minute 50 second songs that play on the radio. Classical is still amazing, though. And I agree on the supernatural religion part :) — Deckiller 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I bet you hate Punk Rock (nonsense like The Sex Pistols and Green Day) and modern pop like Kelly Clarkson and other assorted American Idol winners. Perhaps Heavy Metal, especially if it involves incoherent screaming and unthoughtful compositions. Progressive Metal is okay though. The Beatles and The Kinks are British Invasion, and Led Zeppelin is Ripoff Rock. I also hate the Overrated Genre (Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, [[The Rolling Stones). Nothing beats Prog Rock, Fusion, and Classical music IMHO. — Deckiller 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tony, I don't see your name on FAC much anymore so I don't know if you still go there (it can be pretty harsh). But I've nominated Daspletosaurus and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind going over it really quickly. Maybe not with a fine-toothed comb, but just to give me an idea if its close. All I've got so far are other dinosaur editors and a bird editor. I trust their judgment but I admit it's not the most convincing sample. I had a productive exchange with you on another FAC last year and I try to take your advice to your heart when I write now. Or at least I think I do. If you could review the article it would be very much appreciated. Thanks either way! Sheep81 08:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, I was out of the country for 3 weeks. Thanks for looking over the article. I am happy it was promoted but disappointed in the amount of feedback at FAC (I suppose I could just assume this means it was a worthy candidate). Your comments were reassuring. Thanks again! Sheep81 05:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FICT rewrite[edit]

Hey. Now what my rewrite of WP:FICT has been proposed, it really needs a good copy-edit to give it an air of authority and succinctness. Could you please help to copy-edit User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) when you get the chance? Thanks. — Deckiller 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. — Deckiller 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A prospect for both of you—User talk:Kabethme SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Language movement WP:FAC[edit]

Hi Tony, We have done a lot of copyedits. Also, we had a lot of help from the League of Copyeditors. So, I think the article has improved a lot. Could you please take a look again and see if we have addressed the issues you raised in the objection? Thanks. --Ragib 07:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As per above, please have a look. Regards -Tarif from Bangladesh 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Help please, being railroaded by admin Jossi[edit]

Can you review this and see if it is OR or just a biased admin? Thanks, Libertycookies 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Peace! And off-topic comment...[edit]

I come in peace. :-)

You wrote: "Yeah, Ling Nut, I'm sorry to have to reiterate that GA status isn't worth the pixels it's written on." Heck, let's say I agree 100%. Let's say GA is utterly worthless, fatuous, cringe-worthy cr*p...

Even if we agree to stipulate that point, it is utterly inconsequential to the point I was making. I was not defending GA per se, but instead was saying... FAs go through GA first. If you wanna be efficient/effective about FU, then catch errors at an early point in the road to FA... namely, at GA.

But... sigh... I dunno. Whatever. Cheers. Ling.Nut 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sale, Greater Manchester[edit]

Hi. I think I've addressed you're concerns, if you wouldn't mind taking another look. I'm sorry if I haven't. Epbr123 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The article has had further copy-edits by six members of the League of Copyeditors. I just wondered if it's near an acceptable level yet? I'll keep requesting more copy-edits in the mean time. Thanks. Epbr123 21:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction)[edit]

I made some of the tweaks you suggested to the opening as you suggested. Is the opening better now? I also split some content into a separate section. — Deckiller 13:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
To Tony1, on the occasion of Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. With thanks -Susanlesch 06:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Sound Candidates[edit]

Regarding the Roosevelt speech, I have withdrawn my original candidacy and have put up the full version of the speech. As always, comments are welcome. Borisblue 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary Martha Sherwood FAC[edit]

I believe that I have sufficiently addressed your concerns at the Mary Martha Sherwood FAC. Please re-review the article and see if it has your support now. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

...mind taking a look?[edit]

I have no idea how your schedule is lately, but I think it's absolutely awesome that you're getting this many requests. Also, love your guide. I was wondering if you could give the S.H.E article a scathing review in terms of the prose. The article is currently a GA, and, in my personal opinion, pretty much borderline FA if it weren't for the prose and flow in the article. I'm having some problems making a good lead, because it's mostly me just slapping together trivial bits of the article and putting it into the lead. Thanks. Pandacomics 06:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, it's really appreciated. Hoorah. Pandacomics 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

eye movement in language reading[edit]

Thanks for the editing pointers and the recognition!

  • The year thing, I frankly thought weird as well. I'd seen it done elsewhere, so I started doing it. I agree though, they aren't much use. Unless maybe its a birtday or death year. Speculation was one I thought might be useful. Some of the articles I run across, at times tend to use a higher level vocabulary than might be appropriate. This particular article had a bunch of jargon. Speculation is probably boarderline. I personally like learning new words, and figured cross linking might help others, while driving to a lower common denominator of support for vocabulary.
  • Could you show me how to use the small? I saw the small=yes parameter on the JS Back page and gave it a try, but it didn't work for the wikification template. Does it need to be derived from another template, or am I missing something. Go ahead and make the change, if you can get it to work and I'll use it going forward.

Thanks again for the chat. --SB 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


I apologise in advance of your reading of my angry reaction to your comments on this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Malakand, it is just that I wholeheartedly disagree with your philosophy of reporting the mistakes without pitching in to lend a hand, but that is your method of operating and I respect that. SGGH speak! 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I guess you're right. I'm giving the article another copy edit, and Raymond Palmer and Karanacs from the FAC have been working on it also. SGGH speak! 19:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


I raised a question here, because of your copyedit concerns and the idea that someone would add an article they authored that recently passed FAC over copyedit objections. Unanimous support was good logic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheerness[edit]

I think Sheerness is ready for a re-assessment. Epbr123 14:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It's possibly ready for another assessment. Thanks. Epbr123 11:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you re-review at some time, please? Epbr123 17:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Benchley[edit]

... has been sitting around for a while, partly because the nominator had other issues. Do you consider your objections have been addressed? If not, what more needs to be done? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello there. I remember how you criticized my prose when Jurassic Park had its FAC. I'm practising a lot on Transformers and making the prose smooth. I'd be delighted to know if you think I'm getting better at it or not. Alientraveller 18:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design[edit]

Please have a close look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design; there are some serious prose issues raised here, and a lot seems to have gotten by in the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses style issues[edit]

Hi Tony. Would you be able to take a look at the Accomplishments section of the Guns N' Roses article, and comment on the style issues? I'm not too sure if the awards are meant to be written in a sentence, or does every sentence start with "Guns N' Roses received the". If you could help out a little, it would be great. Kind regards, Sebi [talk] 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Postage stamps of Ireland[edit]

Left you some notes after a copyedit of the lead today. Hope you get the time to go back and read the article and advise accordingly. Cheers ww2censor 03:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for yesterday's new comments. I fixed all the specific issues you mentioned, such as the "due to" repetition and specialised books comment from your previous comment. Left comments re each individual comment on the FAC page. Thanks ww2censor 04:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you last posted on the FAC I did quite a bit more cleanup. Just a quick thank you for participating in the Postage stamps of Ireland FAC. Your input was very useful and I have learned a lot from the process. Whether you raised issues, assisted with some cleanup, opposed or supported the article, thanks again for all you do for Wikipedia. ww2censor 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


Tony, I don't know how to hyphenate fractions: WP:MOSNUM#Numbers_in_words. Hyphen or not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Department of style[edit]

Hi Tony. I wonder if you might be interested in this suggestion for a copyeditor's Department of style? I personally appreciate rigourous copyediting - see Sandy's work here (joopers is a sock of mcginnly), and I'm not suggesting that writing editor's shouldn't do their best to comply with the particular requirements of MOS etc. but it does seem that little distinction is drawn these days between the guidance given in 'guidelines' and 'policy' and that causes a good deal of friction within the project. In addition to the rather daunting prospect for new editors of having to wade through all the policy documentation. My suggestion comes from a genuine desire to see some of the more unseemly spats at FAC, FARC etc. stop, and to enable everyone to play to their strengths - those with the indepth knowledge of policy - and let's face it, the more vociferous characters at FAC are quite involved in shaping it, can help to apply it - it's a SOFIXIT solution I admit but I was wondering if there might be some mileage in a discussion? --Joopercoopers 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On another note - could you tell me what the current thinking is regarding in-line citations in the lead? I remember a discussion where somemone argued that as the Lead is a summary of the article, summarising referenced facts in the body of the article, that referencing wasn't required in the lead - personally I like this approach as it means that the summary style of the lead is visually unincumbered with citation links. WP:LEAD, WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:RS provide no guidance. BTW - I've been on wikibreak for a bit - does ATT now supercede V and RS or are they now all applicable? Hardly a simplification I'd say. --Joopercoopers 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Glad to see your comment on this - I was in the process of adding to my own text and giving it a subheading, so your comment may or may not be in just the right place: I saw it when I finally saved the page. I've not got involved in wiki-debates hitherto, but the idea of imposing words for centuries seems appalling.

Having come here, I browsed around to your guide to 1a, which I must come back to some time when I have a bit more time, but noticed that there seems to be a formatting glitch in that everything after a certain point (sorry, forgotten) is in large format. Presumably just a closing format tag missing somewhere. Cheers. PamD 11:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem starts at "Additive links" under "Sentences". PamD 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
If I change <span style="font-size:11pt"><font-color=midnightblue>''Additive links''</span> to <span style="font-size:11pt">''Additive links''</span> (ie remove the font-color tag), it cures the problem in "Preview Edit" - but I then "Cancel"led out, rather than tweak tags I don't know much about!
I'm using IE7 under Windows XP, in case that helps. Cheers. PamD 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I know just the person to investigate this issue: Ambuj.Saxena. Tony 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Gilbert (chemist)[edit]

I'm not an administrator, and I think you'll struggle to get them (since it seems to be two IPs, although probably the same person: and banned, however a decent block might cut it off. I've not really followed this dispute, but I suggest you take it to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents and I'll chip in if necessary. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your change to my edits at WP:NFC[edit]

Thanks. Well done. Wikidemo 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Chew Stoke FAC[edit]

Hi, You kindly made some comments about the Chew Stoke article on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke. I wonder if it would be possible for you to take another look as I believe your comments have been addressed. Thanks— Rod talk 16:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Further recent work in copyediting this article by several editors has made major improvements - would you be kind enough to reconsider your object to it's FAC?— Rod talk 08:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Is the heading on your userpage an Aussie usage, or a typo? I think (supported by Chambers English Dictionary) there's an "e" in it: heroes. PamD 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(Excuse me for butting in) but an article in today's Guardian explains how the "e" got there. Thought you might be interested. Colin°Talk 17:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm a moron. Fixed. Tony 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony, it was PamD that spotted it. Oh, and you forgot to insert the link to the Guardian ;-) Colin°Talk 07:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks... but of course it was Colin who spotted the Guardian link! PamD 12:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Wasn't any form of protest; just a stilly mistake on my part. I brainfarted, and thought I was "Historical"ing MOSDASH (which I now note redirs to MOS anyway). I think I was just too tired to be editing! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language[edit]

The discussion at MOS on gender-neutral language makes interesting (long-winded) reading. (Latest post I see was 30 June.) The upcoming draft referred to, where is it currently at? This issue is becoming one which MOS will have to address, since editors do need a "style guide". Note, guide.

If it comes across as proscriptive, rather than descriptive of current practice, it wont work. Politics, damn politics - trying to make a change is seen as "having an agenda", but "sticking with the status quo" somehow, quite wrongly, is not seen as "having an agenda". Toning down the political slant is one way to go about the process of forming a consensus. Every guideline page, (and MOS is hugely important), goes through this refining process, so the most overtly "political" issues are hardest to resolve.

This editor, for one, would be glad to see MOS provide guidance on this vexing matter. And beginning from a worthwhile source, such as Reuters, or Press Council, whatever, seems the way to go, initially.Just my comment, as an editor, and thanks for the heap of work which you seem to do.Newbyguesses - Talk 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Formatting issues on my 1a page[edit]

The problem was a few bold (<b>) tags were not closed properly in the div tag part above. It was bolding the lined list section. I was able find the problem by comparing this section with the "Multiple-sentence lists" section below where this was not happening. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)[edit]

Hi Tony, I was hoping you might take a look at this. I'm not asking for a copy edit (Outriggr has agreed to that). I dont have training in music theory, and as I synthesized it from a number of sources I am concerned that it still makes sence. Thanks. Ceoil 16:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Timelines and Tense[edit]

Tony, I need your advise on handling tense in a timeline. I wrote Timeline of tuberous sclerosis and used the past tense for each entry, though there are also comments written from today's perspective/tense. It is currently a feature list candidate and one editor opposed on the grounds that it should all be present tense. Perhaps my list isn't a pure timeline/chronology? It includes more than just one sentence per event. For example, how would I rewrite:

1918 French physician René Lutembacher published the first report of cystic lung disease in a patient with TSC. The 36-year-old woman died from bilateral pneumothoraces. Lutembacher believed the cysts and nodules to be metastases from a renal fibrosarcoma. This complication, which only affects women, is now known as lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM).

I can see how to write "xxx publishes the first report.." but what happens with the other sentences? How could I include the last sentence, which is written from today's perspective? To be honest, I find the constant present tense in a timeline (e.g. Timeline of chemistry, which isn't 100% consistent anyway) to be forced and tiresome. IMO it is OK for brief soundbites, "Diana dies in a car crash", but becomes troublesome if you want to say a bit more.

I'd value your opinion. Thanks for you time, Colin°Talk 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Colin, you can get around it by saying "French physician René Lutembacher published the first report of cystic lung disease in a 36-year-old patient with TSC after she dies from ...". But there are going to be cases where the tension between past and present tenses is unsolvable. I'll check out the nomination. Tony 15:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Should that be "French physician René Lutembacher publishes the first report of cystic lung disease in a 36-year-old patient with TSC after she dies from ...", as the initial question was how to do it all in present tense? PamD 15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, though the last sentence is still a problem. Based on what's now been written on the nomination, I think I'll keep the past tense for the past. Which is a relief. Thanks for your help. Colin°Talk 16:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, it's late at night—that's my excuse! Tony 16:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(Not a copyedit request) Out-of-universe versus in for an FAC, time willing[edit]

Someone's opposing my latest FAC because the five paragraphs detailing the show's premise and characters (five being needed because of drastic mid-season changes) are written in an out-of-universe style. They present perspectives on how developers designed characters and plots by making use of quotations / citations from a writer's bible and commentaries. This is the first time I've encountered something like this; do you agree with his comments here based on this section? That said, any other commentary is welcome. I've invested several hours into copyediting (with a two-week break in between) to see if I can pull off an unassisted run. There are a few tense anomalies mainly because the writers' bible quotation uses present while I use past throughout the article. Zeality 02:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; first time I've ever been clarified on that crafty ellipsis rule...I'll see what I can do this week. Zeality 18:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Many updates at WP:NFC[edit]

Greetings, Tony. Lots of things are happening at WP:NFC. Most of them are deliberations about policy, but there is one thing strictly about sentence construction and such. Your input at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#NFCC #1 would be most appreciated. --Iamunknown 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is stuff to copyedit at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content#Restarting non-poll discussion. Thanks for helping out, Tony. --Iamunknown 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gnixon[edit]

You're fed up? I've never seen you once ever interact with any of us in any article I've seen. If you have, please show me where. I have no clue what you're background is, but several very intelligent, long-time and prolific editors with significant backgrounds in these fields have a problem with Gnixon. He is uncivil, a POV warrior, and you should read what FeloniousMonk, a long-time admin here, has to say. If you have something to say about Gnixon, how about some facts, instead of railing on all of us. Orangemarlin 04:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Tony, I had to add four </font> tags to switch off the green color on the comment I've just added to the numbers etc debate! I think you only need one <font color... tag and then need to switch it off with a </font>. Cheers PamD 07:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No wrap thin spaces[edit]

Thin spaces within no wrap ... sounds good ... but on this machine you need to use {{unicode}} (... or something equivalent) for thin spaces to show as anything better than boxes.

Now I've tried putting {{nowrap}} inside {{unicode}} with no luck.


And I've it the other way round with {{unicode}} inside {{nowrap}} without any luck either.


So I tried combining the two.

12 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

This works just fine ... except that it changes the font of the text. So instead I tried something different. I put the unicode template within the nowrap span and it works just fine.

12 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Of course, who's going to bother typing all of this? Well, no one will have to if we write a template which does it for us. That would be a very straight-forward template to write. Note, however, there'd have to be a limit on the number of thin spaces any such template could insert (unless anyone's up for writing an infinitely long template). Here's an example of what I mean (inserting up to half a dozen thin spaces). Jɪmp 08:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, since you're unsure, the above note was in response to the one on my page. By this machine I mean the computer in front of me: it produces boxes unless the &thinsp; is in {{Unicode}} or the equivalent. So {{Nowrap}} solved the problem of producing non-breaking thin spaces but there's another problem that had been left unsolved: how to get thin spaces to display correctly all machines.
So, in short {{Unicode}} solves one problem and {{Nowrap}} solves the other. However, it's not as simple as using both templates together because neither seem to work inside the other. Thus, I went looking for a simultaneous solution to both problems.
What I found was that if you basically take the guts out of {{Nowrap}} (i.e. <span style="white-space:nowrap"> ... </span>) and use this directly instead of the {{Nowrap}} template, then {{Unicode}} works fine.
Of course, nobody's about to type <span style="white-space:nowrap">12{{unicode|&thinsp;}}kg</span> but we won't have to. All we'll have to type would be {{thinnbsp|12|kg}} and all will be done for us (this is even easier than {{Nowrap|12&thinsp;kg}}.
P.S. You've figured out why &nbsp;&thinsp; didn't work, right?—(two different spaces: one next to the other) Jɪmp 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that last bit was easy. But I'm amazed and delighted that you've been able to come up with an easy way of doing the combined thin non-breaking space. WELL DONE! I'll test it now and change my proposed text at MOSNUM. Tony 02:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial[edit]

Your concerns have been addressed. Alientraveller 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

syntactic goof, or just haziness[edit]

Well, I've tried to answer your query. . . . Hoary 11:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved copyedit[edit]

FYI, [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


I am writing a guide to copyediting. I might link to some of your pages for specific topics. RedRabbit1983 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in spirit, but do not wish to be involved. I use wikipedia for my circle of interests and take less interest in the greater scheme. RedRabbit1983 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

MOSNUM question[edit]

Hi Tony. I have a quick question concerning your ongoing draft of MOSNUM (excellent by the way). Would you consider including clarification WRT ranges of percentages (e.g. 70–75% vs. 70%–75%)? This doesn't come up that often, but I've come across inconsistencies a few times (particularly in Drugboxes). Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fv, that's an excellent point, and an issue that I'd stored away but failed to retrieve during the drafting. I haven't dared to look at the feedback yet! Tony 04:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Implemented thus. Tony 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm glad it was helpful. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll review further tomorrow, but are you aware of my new favorite template, {{convert}}? It covers non-breaking hard spaces and conversions in one, eliminating the need to add non-breaking hard spaces and convert manually, as well as guaranteeing accuracy on conversion to within a user-specified decimal precision. Compare the effect on the editor in edit mode of working with

  • {{convert|10|mi|km|0}} which yields 10 miles (16 km)
  • 10&nbspmiles (16&nbspkm) which yields 10 miles (16 km)

Decimal precision is controlled by the last parameter.

Also, non-breaking hard spaces separating time from a.m. and p.m., since the idea is to keep the am/pm from wrapping to another line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

On your last point, how about this? Tony 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Plus [16].

Looks good. I can't negotiate that talk page, so I'm being lazy and leaving my comments here:

  • Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash ... link to the dash page.
  • Why may? Commas may be used to break the sequence every three places (2,900,000).
  • Architecture, room sizes and dimensions. I came across this recently. 10 ft by 20 ft, or 10 × 20 ft, or what?
  • Batting averages, see Christopher C. Kraft, Jr. the .340.[5] makes me crazy (dot number dot number). How to fix? And batting averages never have a leading zero (0.340) which violates the requirement for a leading zero on decimals.

Rest looks good, where do I sign? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do I sign?
Ditto :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think batting averages or sports scores ever have a leading zero; I've never seen them anywhere. Ever. It would just be weird if we starting adding zeroes. ESPN baseball-reference San Francisco Chronicle Chicago Tribune SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'ts hard to find a solid example of a stable baseball article that uses batting averages; every baseball article I checked needs MOS cleanup (except Sandy Koufax, who just fassed FAR, but he was a pitcher, no batting averages). I guess the Baseball Project isn't strong on keeping their GAs and FAs up to snuff. Batting average#Baseball might be useful, but it's complicated by Cricket being first. St. Louis Cardinals seasons is a featured list with incorrect dashes; if you like it, I could fix the MOS issues. Fred Clarke, Moe Berg (FA) and Ty Cobb (GA) are among the cleanest. If you pick one from the possibilities above, I'll do MOS cleanup so you'll have a better example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other question, gosh, it's hard for me to understand why we would handle imperial and metric units differently; can't wrap my brain around that, but do whatever's best so you can get the thing done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of Batting average, and St. Louis Cardinals seasons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I did some work on Ty Cobb, but it uses mixed reference styles and has a See also link farm. Gosh, I could spend all day cleaning up baseball articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much[edit]

Thank you very much, Tony, for all your edits across Wikipedia. I especially appreciate your edits to non-free content-related information. While your edits seem to be to quite a few areas lately, including MOS, MOSNUM, FAs, and NONFREE, we at WP:NONFREE could use your edits whenever you can spare the time! Again, thanks, --Iamunknown 07:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You have quite a few discussions going on here, so I wasn't quite sure what to do when I alerted you last week! Good to know that I can let you know when text needs tweaking.  :-) --Iamunknown 07:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote placement[edit]

This is spreading across numerous guideline talk pages, and may be a candidate for consolidation into the main WP:MOS. Do you have an opinion? [17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also here, and it's on a third page somewhere as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Formatting of Template:Sci[edit]

I've added &nbsp; or non-breaking spaces to either side of the × sign. +mt 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


I thought that you were handling the rewriting of a MOSNUM summary for the MOS. A summary of various editors' input. Then check out this edit! You may want to tell User:Crissov to back off and not go it alone. —MJCdetroit 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your edit of MOSNUM[edit]

[This was originally posted on the other editor's talk page.]

Instead of [this], could you comment on the proposal at talk for replacing these sections with a new, short one? Tony 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Which one is it? That talk page is huge... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
PS: I don't feel strongly about the passage as a whole, I just clean up redundant examples with extreme prejudice. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of tuberous sclerosis[edit]

The timeline of tuberous sclerosis is now a featured list. Many thanks for your support and suggestions at FLC. Colin°Talk 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR instructions[edit]

Your talents are needed at FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I much prefer the current instructions to the old ones. DrKiernan 11:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Board of Trade Building[edit]

I'm sorry to bother you again, but could you please see if my objections in this FAC were valid. Thank you. Epbr123 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think 27 meters by 27 meters is actually 729 m2. Epbr123 09:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Please modify your signature so it includes a link to your user or talk page; thank you. --NE2 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Regarding Jackie Chan[edit]

While I waited for the users I contacted to have a look at Jackie Chan, I decided to go and make another run through, making some changes to the article. If you have some spare time, I'd be grateful if you read through it once and give me some pointers on my talk page. Got to sleep now. Thanks.--Kylohk 14:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • And now, WikiProject Hong Kong has gone through and made some significant changes to the article, just to let you know.--Kylohk 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix[edit]

I have noticed you have left a concern to do with dashed ranges on this FAC candidate. I have now changed it per MOS guidlines. Feel free to take a look. Thanks for bringing up that concern. Davnel03 12:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a nice day![edit]

MOSNUM draft[edit]

I tweaked the part about cubic measurements in your draft (User:Tony1/Dates and numbers). It was nothing major, but just letting you know anyway. —MJCdetroit 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)