User talk:Tony1 

Werdnabot automatically archives sections on this page that are older than 7 days. The age of a section is determined by its most recent timestamp (sections without a timestamp will not be archived). All archived sections are listed here, by size. When an archive reaches 256 kB, a new one is created. The current archive is Archive 4. A list of all archives is here.
Archive
Archives
List of all archived sections

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.





The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 4, Issue 45 — 2008-11-24
Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Real-life workload: 8.5

Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

Contents

about that RfC ...

hello Tony - that RfC you launched at MOSNUM wasn't listed at WP:RFC/A because it lacked a timestamp. i added one, and now it's listed properly. i thought i should let you know about that, since i'm not sure if you had some reason for omitting the timestamp, or if it got deleted after you posted it or what ... anyway it's listed properly now, which i trust is a good thing. Sssoul (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also listed it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RFCstyle/manual Ohconfucius (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

hm, curiouser and curiouser - after i added the timestamp it showed up at Template:RFCstyle_list, so why isn't it at WP:RFC/A?? ah the wonders of technology ... thanks for listing it manually, Ohconfucius Sssoul (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
ps: doublechecking the listing at Template:RFCstyle_list, the RfC Tony launched is currently the first "automatic" one listed, in addition to Ohconfucius's gallant manual add of it. but the link in the "automatic" listing leads to the MOSNUM talk page, not to the proper section for this RfC - that's not good, since the old birth/death-date RfC is still at the top of that page, so newcomers to the discussion might easily be distracted by that one. can someone archive that old one, and/or relist the new one so that the "section=" entry leads to the right place on the page? it would be a drag if anyone could later claim that this RfC "doesn't count" because it wasn't listed properly ... Sssoul (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for this: I'm a computer klutz, and very short of time for WP until mid-week. I see there that I need to make the wording of the "reason" much more explicit; it's terrible at the moment. Shall do. Tony (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've changed the "reasons" at the RfC on MOSNUM talk to "Three important proposals for changing MOSNUM with respect to (1) the linking of date formats, (2) date autoformatting, and (3) requirements for auto changes". But still the old "three things that are causing intermittent disruption" appears at the RfC style page. No big deal, I suppose, but it would be nice to broadcast the real content to the communicty! Tony (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Templates can take a while to update. I'll purge the cache and see if that makes a difference. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
the "reason" looks good now, and it's listed at WP:RFC/A as well - hallelujah. i've just amended the "section=" bit to match the real name of the section, and i hope that'll cause it to link directly to the right part of the page, once the bot catches up ... thanks everybody and swing on Sssoul (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. I thought listing was of prime importance. Thanks for the fine-tuning. BTW, Cole and expert are going around spamming talk pages about me again. Ho hum... Ohconfucius (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry; I think I was stabbed in the back so much one night I nearly bled to death. No matter—I think they've discredited themselves well and truly. Tony (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question regarding record charts

I can't find this in MOSDATE and I recall it being discussed not too long ago. Is there a reason to prefer "number 1", "No. 1", "#1" or "number one" when discussing a hit song? Gimmetrow 07:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have that memory too, but can't think where it might be. The middle two are fine by me; I don't like the lower-case n or the spelling out of the number. Tony (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
That discussion happened at either WT:MOS, or more likely, WT:MOSNUM, months ago, lost somewhere in those horrid archives. At that time, Tony said not to use # in prose, but to use it in charts, preferring No. 1 to #1 in prose, but accepting #1 in charts and tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion of your RfC

Hey Tony, some users (you could probably guess who they are) want to transclude the RfC that you started onto another page. It has been suggested that you approve of the transclusion first, so I am notifying you. Here is the thread: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Page_growth. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tony...

Hi Tony. Just a quick apology for the crap going on with regard your admin watch talk page. "tennis expert" has abundantly not retired and seems content to hit and run from any serious discussion including his bad reverts which remove maintenance tags and reintroduce redirects, bad markup and improper capitalisation.

On a lighter note, one week before I'm down under, looking forward to all that "culture"! It'll be a bit easier going than India I think.... All the best to you. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust that you were not in Mumbai at the time. Tony (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully not, we'd left for Malaysia a week earlier. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
In WA's time zone already? ... Welcome. Tony (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All boxed in (not)

Yes! -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten you were in the "let's get real about infoboxes" faction. Hoary, where have you been all this time, during the most fiery phase of the date wars? Tony (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just crawled back under my rock, O supereditor. I missed the date wars in one sense, didn't miss them in another. Actually I've long regretted my misstep in (resulting from a misunderstanding of) your earlier effort to have some new template for these date things. I'm also rather pissed off with the otherwise tolerable (London) Guardian for switching to the odd format MDY; if Youessians like this odd sequence then bully for them, but it seems bizarre to me (and actually I prefer the Japanese YMD). What with stuff in the real world and alarming rumblings here, I haven't been doing much here recently that's been very constructive; in my free time instead dawdling in the used bookshops and picking up far too many potentially write-uppable treasures, among them a lovingly assembled collection of the earlier work by this obscure figure, the kind of thing that gives vanity publishing a good name. (Yes, "BeeBooks" -- see also "Bee Books" -- is a vanity imprint; perhaps they'll put out anything, and the average is indeed uninspiring, but at their best the content is first rate, and a lot of their books are rightly shelved at the best libraries here.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Noetica recently had a ball in used and new bookshops in China: amazing variety of English-language books. Tony (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You beat me...

You seem to have beat me to delinking Lumos3's disruptive relinkings... Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all. I was expecting he'd given up, but no ... it's like a squash ball bouncing back at you. Tony (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_that_have_British_victims

I would appreciate your input at Talk:List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_that_have_British_victims. There is a very small issue relating to renaming it to List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_with_British_victims ('that have' -> 'with'). You may also be interested in the other matters being discussed. None of which are a big deal. Lightmouse (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Are they friendly incidents that involve fire? A hyphen is required: "List of post-1945 US friendly-fire incidents with British victims"? Tony (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see you support hyphenation, but this is another ENGVAR question, because American usage is clear: do not hyphenate. Which VAR is more relevant here is not clear to me, so should we fall back on leave it as it was? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No, American language editors will insist on a hyphen here; the nominal group contains 14 words on the highest rank, and on the second rank, "U.S._friendly_fire_incidents" is a four-word nominal group. It's ambiguous without the hyphen, not to menion harder to read. Go see Scientific American. Tony (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have. None of their three uses of "friendly fire" are in apposition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

1910–12

I am disappointed in you.

I admit that 1910–12 can mean something other than the triennium, in the right context, but that's true of all of English; consider bear. The numbers have a normal meaning, and only mean something else in parallel with 1910–09 and the like. The argument that we should adopt novel formatting everywhere to avoid ambiguity in a handful of places is the sort of thing that's making Wikipedia look perverse to literate speakers of English; it should be discouraged, not coddled. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To attract your disappointment, Anderson, is indeed a thrill. Tony (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure is my power to please you, Sir. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That's getting kinky. Tony (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on hyphens again

Please comment on hyphens again at Template_talk:Convert#Apparently_bad_use_of_hyphen. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Primate at FAC

Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice

Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 2 --Closedmouth (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tony (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Lazare_Ponticelli#Date_links

Hi Tony, could you explain to a couple of editors why linking years, especially on a Featured Article, is not helpful and goes against a definite consensus. I would do it myself, but one of the editors seems determined to disregard whatever I tell him. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now Mandrax is there causing trouble. He sniffs it out by stalking contrib. pages. Tony (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice theory; but in fact, I followed the link from this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Tony. However, I feel that threatening FAR is a bit drastic and may be seen as a bit POINTY by some at FAR (it is after all, one year link). The important thing is that certain editors don't proceed to disrupt other articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Generational change at Washington? Now let's do it at ArbCom

I'm going to make an unashamedly POV statement: SandyGeorgia, who is in the key position to maintain and improve the standards of WP's articles, has provided a helpful Voters' guide for the upcoming election. Seven of the 13 seats are up for election, so this is a chance to put an end to the administrative incompetence and backchannelling that has plagued ArbCom during 2008. We need ArbCom to be more:

The future lies partly in your hands, so please consider the values that underpin the voting guide when you make your decision. Tony (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Comments like THIS

[edit] Lazare_Ponticelli I see that Mandrax has sniffed out this location and is stirring up trouble by reverting back to the date links and autoformatting. Tony (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

smack of canvassing. "Stirring up trouble?" Have any mirrors around?Ryoung122 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this canvassing? WP:CANVASS explicitly defines canvassing as "sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." This has nothing to do with a community discussion. Tony sent a friendly notice to me. There is no relation between canvassing and this. Please assume good faith. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is strictly limited distribution, thus I believe fails WP:CANVAS. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and apart from that, the people involved are in continual contact about such matters as this. Tony (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Continually apprising one another of disputes so you can mob up on the editor(s) on their talk pages does smack of canvassing. It would be fascinating to see these disputes unfold without the usual suspects showing up to weigh in. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
We all have a right to give an opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryoung122, Tony's post is just a small part of a large, ongoing pattern of disruption and incivility that is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert, haven't you retired per your userpage? Please stop posting rude and disruptive messages - we're here to improve the encyclopedia, not just snipe from the sidelines. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of "improve the encyclopedia". Obviously our views are not shared or we wouldn't have these kinds of problems... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, so we agree to disagree on this. What are you trying to prove with this posting, then? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That there's a disagreement over what constitutes "improvement". —Locke Cole • t • c 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It's difficult to have mutual respect when you belittle and attack what I (and others) consider valuable. FYI, this also makes it difficult to want to be "friends". You must understand that changing something from a status quo after five years of it being that way will be met with resistance. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • But with nowhere near as much resistance as you present to the community. At some point you need to acknowledge that there were many thousands of alterations made by Tony (and others) that met no (or only minor short-termed) resistance. The overwhelming sentiments of the various RfC responses demonstrate why.  HWV 258  00:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The only thing the community seems to agree upon so far is that dates should not be linked purely for the benefit of auto formatting. The community does seem to think dates should be linked in certain circumstances (thus this makes it impossible for any automated method to work: a bot doesn't know the intent of the editors who created the article or their reasoning). And a lack of resistance by the wider community should not be deemed an acceptance: that I haven't chosen to engage in mass scale revert warring over this is because I don't wish to be as disruptive as those engaging in those types of edits. I could, but what's the point when we should come to an agreement that automated changes are bad and clearly not what the community is endorsing at the Date linking RFC? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The community has not agreed on what dates, if any, should be linked. The opinions range from once in a blue moon to "significant dates", in which significant dates, more often than not, have not been explicitly defined. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if we take your reading, that implies that no dates should be delinked until the community has reached a consensus decision. It doesn't mean start delinking dates and hope nobody notices. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "The only thing the community seems..."—sadly, no. I had hoped you would address the main point I raised, but this doesn't appear to be the topic conducive to that.  HWV 258  02:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

If you don't think that the article is an example of our best work, then why don't you fix it? ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page, it says that Tony has a real-life workload of 8.5 on a scale of 1–10. He doesn't have enough time to do that much. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Take a break then. Whenever I get that stressed out, I tend to be unproductive and/or irritable. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for Tony there. Anyway, also note that he does not normally copy-edit articles anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
EOTW: I don't fix articles: I critique them. Tony (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)