User talk:Tony1/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glee characters

Excuse me, could you add spencer porter, rodrick, Jane hayward, madison and mason macarthy, alistar, Myron and walter to the table of recurring characters in the article of the list of glee characters, please??? I cant, it's hard for me to edit, while I can only use a phone, my computer needs fixing. Thsnks if u can!! 😀☺ Zhyboo (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

😯???? Zhyboo (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Link to article? There are several with similar names. Tony (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"Characters of glee" Zhyboo (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Harry Hamlin plays walter, by the way Zhyboo (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Harry Hamlin plays walter, by the way Zhyboo (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't see my name in the edit history. Why don't you make these edits yourself, Zhyboo? Tony (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nationality flags

I noted that the current Egypt Air crash article - front page of Wiki- includes national flags and knowing your interest thought I'd notify you. The article is EgyptAir Flight 804.Researcher1944 (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
  2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
  3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
  4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
  5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
  6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

RE: ted leonard

Hi I would like you to explain what tone means as this article I wrote on this musician. I can pull out other articles that are written the same way?T Heart (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't link it here, so I had to dig it out. References for more of the claims would help. There's lot's of "Leonard would become" ...why not just "Leonard became"? There's would would would throughout. "Leonard, was interested to see how it would be in front of an audience entertaining." – (remove comma) ... this is just internalised. How do you know this? "Leonard was hooked" ... informal language, and again, internalised without public reference. "Teddy would get the opportunity to perform with ..." – that's a skew that suggests it was a big break, underneath the surface of this text, but it would be better to be plain and straight in telling the readers the facts. He played with ...
Watch those awkward commas. There's another after "that".
"In the outset of his musical journey"—At, not in. And "journey" is too poetic for this genre. Plain facts.
Not grammatical: "Leonard became a self-taught musician developing his own style and form of the blues music sound, he spent in total 18 years with the Fathead blues band."

Tony (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

how about cutting me some slack... this was posted today written over a month and I am still adding referencesT Heart (talk)

How do I know it? I have referenced the actual article he was quoted in or did you not read this.

Cut you slack? Why do you take it personally? I'm trying to show you how to improve the article. And how to insulate it from others who might come along and make the same criticisms. Tony (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
This approach in my opinion is next to bullying and its not the first time I have experienced this with you. I will leave wiki due to this once I save an article on the remove list. I will actually be filing a remark to all this where ever that is on wiki.T Heart (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Incredible. I try to give helpful advice and get this response? Next time I won't bother. Leave. Tony (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Text design

Unrelated to Wikipedia: I am involved in a project to analyze how the design elements of text—typeface, type size, line length, line spacing (leading), etc.—affect ease of reading and comprehension, and particularly whether reading on iPads and other electronic displays should affect the choice design design elements. Do know of any worthwhile sources on this topic?—Finell 00:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This was my first try on google scholar. Tony (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Tony: Thanks very much. I did not mean to give you a research assignment. I thought you might know some sources from your work as an editor and writer. But what you found is very useful. Thank you, again.—Finell 06:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
No problem, took 10 seconds. I think it's a fascinating topic. Tony (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

RE: Kettle and Fire

Hi Tony, thanks for your edits. I wanted to kindly ask if you could remove the speedy-deletion tag, so that I'm not doing it as the original page author. Ryanckulp (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"Medical subject headings" or "Medical Subject Headings"

I landed on Medical subject headings while editing an article that linked to it. I proposed on the talk page that the article's title should be in title case. Then I saw that you recently moved the article to change the title from title (proper) to sentence case. While that made me think thrice, I still believe title case is correct because the article's subject is a specific publication with that title. Would you mind taking another look?—Finell 00:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I've upcased the title. Tony (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG re flags in infobox settlement

Let's use your recent edits for Hutchinson, New Jersey as an example. For starters, you have switched the standard date format from mdy to dmy for no apparent reason. As described in the edit summaries reverting your previous edits, use of flags in the article is entirely consistent with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline and Template:Infobox settlement, for both country and state. These changes will be reverted and should not be reinstated without discussion and consensus. Am I missing something that you see as policy that requires these changes? Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The date thing was a mistake. I wouldn't bother standing up to your fascist ideas on nationalism in infoboxes, but DO NOT revert other corrections I've made at the same time. Tony (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
AFAICT, the flags serve no useful purpose. Yes, the US flag might belong in the US article, and the NJ flag might belong in the NJ article, but the usage here appears to be at best decorative and two stages removed to be of any relevance to the article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
"Luddite"?!? "Fascist"?!? Take a step back, take a deep breath and start this over again, civilly. Alansohn (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll decide whether you deserve civility. At the moment it's not looking good. Tony (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Tony, please be nice. Alansohn, what, in your opinion, are the flags for? Tony, if this conversation is annoying you, say and we can take it elsewhere. --John (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Puzzle (song)

Your mistakes include tagging the article with {{Use mdy dates}}, and then proceeding to change all the date formats using DMY, and vaguely citing MOS:LINK to unlink music techniques, instruments, and market terms that readers unfamiliar with the topic would otherwise not understand—in direct contrast to the guideline which encourages interlinks "that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand". — ξxplicit 07:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The dates were already mdy in the article. What is wrong with tagging it as such? Why do we want links to "marriage" (twice), "wedding", "arrangement", "arranger", "Tokyo", and "guitar"? Tony (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Revisit your edit. You changed some of the dates to read as DMY, so there's '4 May' instead of 'May 4', '11 May' instead of 'May 11', and so on, intermixed with the established MDY format in the article. How do music-related terms not increase the readers' understand of the topic, which is related to music? Per points one and three of MOS:UNDERLINK, links should be provided in order to make "relevant connections to the subject of another article" and that lead to "[a]rticles explaining words of technical terms, jargon..." Music terms in an article about music seems appropriate to me. Additionally, unlinking Tokyo but not doing the same for Osaka seems like cherry-picking to me, as the latter is one of the top most recognizable cities in Japan not far behind from the former. — ξxplicit 10:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That's inexplicable, since I don't manually change dates and the script has never before slipped. Why don't we simply link every word then, in the hope that some reader, somewhere, might want to know what "guitar" means. WP is not a dictionary, and if someone is that desperate, they can type it into the search box. This debate was resolved at community level seven years ago. Tony (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DATERET

Hi, Tony1. While I appreciate your trying to tidy articles, please pay attention to MOS:DATERET. Per this edit, you changed the date format of an article with a pre-existing preference evident. The subject, Constitution of the Republic of Crimea, has no MOS:DATETIES to North America, therefore you should have templated it for dd/mm/yy. I'm going to adjust the template and dating format to the one originally in use. Thanks for your attention, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, twice, I'm afraid. It was a mixture. Look at the top box: "April 11, 2014". I harmonised. No ties to the US (not "North America", by the way)? Irrelevant. Tony (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you are the party who is incorrect: twice. One instance (the only instance) of mdy in the infobox does not trump five instances (that is, every other instance of a date in the stub). Unless there is a strong national tie to the U.S., there is no excuse for overriding the demonstrable dating convention because you've looked at one and have run a script to bring the majority of the article in line with a personal preference. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
No, listen here: if you want to get pumped up about date formats, why don't you ensure that the article was consistent and not a prominent mixture. I did absolutely nothing wrong. As soon as I ascertain that it's not US-related, I go by a very quick survey. In this case, I saw mdy right staring at me at the top. I quite reasonably hit that button, and would do so again. Don't expect me to go picking through your poorly maintain articles just because you can't be bothered ensuring consistency. At least I made it consistent. You need to read the rules properly: non-US-related articles can be in either format provided they're not related to one of the majority English-speaking countries. Instead of causing trouble, you should be thanking me. I hope this has caused you to get the rules right and think twice before criticising, in view of your own slipshod curation. Tony (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Tony1, I left you a courtesy message asking that you check articles and lists a little more carefully before running scripts. I'm not the page curator, nor do I need to be, just as neither of us need to be curators to copy edit any page. There are thousands, upon thousands of articles proscribed by neither ENGVAR nor date format. How can you even be sure of the fact that you haven't just stepped into an article that's been vandalised with a POV pusher changing the date and using the wrong formatting? Wikipedia is not a race, and going by the first date (or the first instance of the spelling of 'center'/'centre', 'color'/'colour', 'favor'/'favour', etc.), then being uncivil about someone simply making an observation really isn't on. Neither of us OWN the articles, but being bombastic and aggressive about "I was right, and you're wrong, and you should be thanking me" is OTT in any English language variant. I know the 'rules', but I think you'd do well to reacquaint yourself with policy. Don't concern yourself. I'm done with interacting with you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank god. Tony (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Nationality flags

Hi Tony I remembered your interest in Nationality flags appearing in tables on WP - the current report on the 2016 Istanbul Atatürk Airport attack (front page) appears to be an example. For info.Researcher1944 (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

email?

I got a note saying I got an email from you, but I can't find it. I've checked three separate times now; can you resend? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Adam, I didn't send you an email. I wonder whether it was one I sent you many months ago (it would have been SP-related. I kind of hope so, since otherwise who knows why this has happened). Tony (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It says 13 days. I keep checking, not finding it, then not contacting you immediately, then checking again. It does say it's the Signpost, though. I'd imagine the Wikicup, which has become a somewhat bigger project as there's no newsletter as yet. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
That rings a bell, WikiCup. But much longer ago than 13 days. Now inconsequential, probably. I've checked, and it looks like it was a wiki-email, not pvt. Tony (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Writing advice essay

Tony, since you're one of the best on Wikipedia at spotting and fixing prose problems, I was hoping you'd have time to look at this essay, which I've also mentioned here. Any comments, including withering criticism and savaging of my improvements to the text, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Signpost...

The University of Pittsburgh has featured one of its Wikipedia Visiting Scholars on its main web page. Since I am admittedly quite vain, and the article is about me, you can decide if it is newsworthy or not. I know talk pages are all about 'improving' the encyclopedia but I am quite tired of friends, family, and my college instructors telling me how I am wasting my time. Somehow I feel quite vindicated at this point. I don't know how often the University of Pittsburgh updates its main page but the story is there at this moment at: www.pitt.edu Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change WP:MOSLINK opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! Were you aware that a proposal has been made at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of style#Proposed revision: links within quotes instead of the forum where it belongs, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking? The proposal is to link terms within quotations, but I am really concerned how widely this sort of policy discussion will reach the people if it's not even discussed at its very own forum. What do you think? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User lists of firearms

Hi, I saw you have a problem with using flags in user lists of firearms. These flags are currently used in many of such articles. I suggest to start a discussion regarding this flag usage on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms talk page before changing many articles.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Francis Flinch—MOS:FLAG discourages the gratuitous use of flags to emphasise nationality. Why are flags relevant here, any more than for clothing manufacturers? Or are the flags simply decorative (also discouraged)? Tony (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand your MOS:FLAG argument and I am open to change, but I think a user talk page is not the right place to discuss your, mine or anybody’s ideas regarding the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms. Please provide your input regarding the user lists at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms, so the style format of all related articles can eventually benefit from the outcome.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Francis Flinch—I'm not going to spend lots of time doing that, but I suppose I'll make a post there. What do you mean by "user lists"? Tony (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
User lists are the lists that contain which countries/military unit(s)/law enforcement agencies use the topic. A cite is required to make a valid entry. You do not have to change many articles. Time will help when a WikiProject agrees on a style format and many editors start changing articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms started removing flags from info boxes not so long ago and I can see change at a remarkable pace. Be the way, I just looked and saw your argument is also relevant to many articles with user/operator lists regarding aircraft, tanks, artillery guns, ships, etc., that Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms does not cover--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks Francis. I'm not alone in finding overuse of flags, even to the extent of gaudiness. It's also a concern that many readers wouldn't know to hover their mouse over a flag to see what country it refers to (many lists don't spell that out in the table/text). But there's considerable opposition to removal at major sporting articles, particularly where lists are concerned. I don't touch those because complainants are vehement. Cheers. Tony (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Changes to article Human Inclusive Fitness

Hi Tony, please could you explain your changes to this article? The accepted phrasing in academic literature does not use a hyphen as you have done.109.69.8.99 (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your inquiry. You might consider raising such a matter on the article talkpage in future (with a link here to that page, since I'm unlikely to have watchlisted it). First, the title should be rendered in sentence case, not title case. Second, to exclude the hyphen is a pretty jarring variation on normal typographical rules. Third, WP caters for non-expert as well as expert readers, and the absence of the hyphen not only looks strange to those who don't have to read it without every day, but makes the compound item slightly more difficult to pick up. You'll find many uses of the hyphen in this item if you do a google engram search (up to 2012, now). Tony (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC) However, on revisiting the article, I see that "includive fitness" and "inclusive fitness theory" are stand-alone units. May I ask you, what is the role of "human" in the title? Does it contrast, for example, with "animal inclusive fitness"? That might help to sort out whether the hyphen is appropriate. Tony (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC) The plot thickens: I see one academic journal that used "human inclusive-fitness". Tony (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tony for your engagement. Yes, this well established biological theory is referred to as 'inclusive fitness' (and not usually 'inclusive-fitness', despite occasional examples such as that academic journal you mentioned). It is specifically the 'fitness' which is being described as 'inclusive' (inclusive is being used as something like an adjective). In the same way we might refer to 'human evolution' or 'primate evolution', we could refer to e.g. 'animal inclusive fitness' (as in 'inclusive fitness in animals') or 'Primate inclusive fitness' (as in 'inclusive fitness in primates'). There are general articles in wikipedia on inclusive fitness theory already. The article we are discussing is intended to summarise the application of this theory to the human species (obviously that species of most interest to anthropologists ;-). I hope this helps clarify the meaning and usage of the terms as understood and practiced by biologists and anthropologists (and thus the relevant usage for this article topic). I think the sense gets significantly altered by using 'human-inclusive fitness', and probably not in the right direction. If you need any more clarifications, please let me know. If my explanation is clear enough, please could you go ahead and reset the title to the original (with the conventional wikistyle capitalisation). Many thanks.109.69.8.99 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to self-revert, given your arguments. I wonder whether you're interested in creating an account. We need every editor we can get, and in the sciences it's a bonus. Tony (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
We could remove the need for readers to parse a compound term by moving to Inclusive fitness in humans. We currently have Sexual selection in humans, Mendelian traits in humans, Photosensitivity in humans, etc. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Adrian, nice idea, which I'll implement now. Anon. editor, please let me know if you don't like it. Tony (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Tony, Adrian - that sounds fine, so long as we can allow existing wikilinks to the old title 'human inclusive fitness' to auto-redirect to the new title 'inclusive fitness in humans'. If that will work, I'm totally in support. Tony - I will consider using a proper account, thank you for the suggestion.109.69.8.99 (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

109, excellent. As far as I know, any "move" (change) of article title automatically creates redirects. I made a few edits to the article text: could you check them, please? If you need any assistance concerning the starting of an account, please ask. Tony (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Tony, I have checked those edits and made a couple of minor tweaks, yours all being very sensible. I will look into the account situation and come back to you if I require your gracious help.109.69.8.99 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

While I heartily agree that flag icons in the infobox under those in the Belligerents section are unnecessary I would leave the ones in Belligerents, to discourage those that disagree from strewing them about in the Commanders and leaders section. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Keith-264, thanks for your note. Which article? Tony (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Is it Battle of Culqualber? If so, the belligerents are all flagged still ... which raises the issue in the mind of the reader: why are some bulleted and others not (Ethiopia, for example, is not, at the bottom)? Looks visually messy. Tony (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to a discussion at MOS talkpage.

Hi, Tony,

I merged part of WP:BANDNAME into MOS:THECAPS in an attempt to make things less confusing, only to have it rudely undone without any explanation by Prickzi, I have asked him or her to please, then, discuss the reversion on the talk page, which he/she has so far refused to do. Will you please enter your opinion on if we should leave the merger in place or why not to have it in place, here: [1]? Nancy Pantzy (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I generally favour rationalising the MOS pages. Tony (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Linking prize

Not to be rude, but I had to spend too much time fixing an article to which I'm awarding the "Overlinked Article of the Decade" Prize. Tony (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't it deserve the "Overcapitalized Article of the Month" at least, too? I did some work on that after seeing this here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You're quite right. I was so exhausted I turned a blind eye. Thank you, Dick. Tony (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it, but it also happens to be unabashed WP:SPAM for a small organisation that has only recently been created. I've put it up for speedy deletion. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Page name

Hello, how can I rename the page? (Alberthas7 (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC))

Alberthas7—which page do you want to rename? Tony (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to rename the page Lala Hasanova [[2]]

From Lala Hasanova to Elizabeth Tudor

According to the WP:COMMONNAME the page name should be Elizabeth Tudor, not Lala Hasanova or Lala Hassenberg. The page name of authors should be their pen name, NOT their birth name see [[3]], [[4]] or [[5]]


Also, if you will follow the history of the page Lala Hasanova you will see that yesterday there have been made some changes in a body of the text. But it was immediately reverted to the last version by Materialscientist. However, I checked the source and compared with edited information, and found that the new edition was made correctly. Please check this link [Authors Guild]

Thanks (Alberthas7 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC))

I'm about to go to bed; I'll look into this tomorrow. Am I getting into a political minefield, though? Tony (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No, of course. There is no political minefield! (Alberthas7 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC))

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Flags in tennis articles

Hello Tony1. You did a script-assisted fix to 2016 World TeamTennis season that removed the flags that were next to players' names when they appeared in tables or the infobox. While I see the point in not emphasizing nationality without a good reason, using flags to identify tennis players is the norm, and this article now departs from that. The number of tennis articles on Wikipedia that make use of the flag of the country the player is eligible to represent in international competition when the player is identified in a table or chart certainly is in the thousands. Here are just a few examples:

Outside the land of Wikipedia, tennis players are frequently described in the media by their nationalities. It isn't uncommon for a television announcer or even a print journalist to use a phrase like "the German" almost like a pronoun instead of saying the player's name repeatedly. Putting all the flags back would be a chore for me, since I do not have a tool to do so. I don't want to revert any of the other edits you made, and I don't want to make them again myself. Do you have a tool you can use to put the flags back? If not, can you please revert your edit and then run your script again without removing the flags? Thanks. Taxman1913 (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you give me one good reason aside from "that's the way we do it"? Tony (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC) But on further examination, that article is not arguing the point over. Tony (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Feedback listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Feedback. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Feedback redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your recent date format changes to List of musicians from Chicago

Recently you changed the date format used by this article from abbreviated month names to full month names. I read MOS:DATEFORMAT to suggest using abbreviated month names for tables. "Only where brevity is helpful (refs,[3] tables, infoboxes, etc.)". Do you have another source that provides more explicit direction not to do this? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you really want it. Are you concerned about mobile device readers? And shouldn't there be a dot after those abbreviations? And there's a "December" there still. Tony (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Ping

I think we addressed your comment at the FAC for Secretariat (horse) can you verify ? (And hopefully, support?) Montanabw(talk) 08:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Backmasking

I have nominated Backmasking for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Senslessly Overlinked Article of the Month Award

This one, which also shows that we need much better infrastructure for assisting good-faith creation of translated articles on en.WP. Anyone for a Wikiproject Translated Articles—somewhere that can provide real people to assist on request? Tony (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Your changes to [Diatonic Function]

Hi! I note that you changed this statement:

In tonal music theory, a diatonic function [...} is the specific, recognized role of each of the 7 notes and their chords in relation to the diatonic key.

into this one:

In tonal music theory, a diatonic function [...] is the specific, recognized role of each of the 7 tones and their triads in relation to the diatonic key.

I do not want merely to revert your changes without having discussed them with you, but I think that you are wrong here.

The case is rather clear for what concerns "chord/triad": more than once, a function is exerted by a 7th chord. It may even be argued that there are several historical reasons to think so. Rameau specifically associated his functions with specific dissonances: a 7th chord, for him, was a dominant, and a 6/5 chord a subdominant. Riemann had the theory of "feigned consonances", by which he meant that some chords, even if apparently consonant (i.e. triads), merely feigned consonance by supposing a dissonance without actually sounding it: the triad IV, for instance, was for him a subdominant because in included an implied 6th (say, F A C + D), a highly Ramist point of view; and the triad II similarly was a subdominant because it implied its 7th. So, I do believe that functions, especially at this early stage in the article, should be associated with "chord" rather than with "triad".

The case of "note/tone" is less clear and really depends on what you call a note, and a tone. A tone, for me, seems to refer to the sound of a ... note, while a note merely is a an abstract concept, in this case a degree of a scale. Functions, indeed, certainly do not depend on particular sounds, and they certainly depend on positions in the scale, the diatonic one in this case. The degrees of the diatonic scale certainly are abstractions: they do not even have a pitch.

Needless to say, all this might be explained further in the article, if necessary. I do think that this article is very much in need of a thorough rewriting. But this, IMO and as I explained in Talk:Diatonic function#Diatonic function, harmonic function, tonal function?, should start with a renaming of the article. (An additional argument to this effect is that functions exist even in minor, while the minor scale probably should not be said "diatonic".) Could you give your opinion about this in Talk:Diatonic function#Requested move 13 October 2016? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point about seventh chords; well spotted. I'll change it back now. But tone is, I believe, less restrictive than note. Tony (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC

Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

One easily fixed; the other, for me, an imponderable I've taken up with the bot-runner. Tony (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Case at ANI

Dear Tony,

I have called attention to our dispute at WP:ANI#User:Tony1. You will no doubt want to participate in the discussion.

Ravpapa (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Birth/death template parameters

Your recent edits, e.g. Ana Nahum, Concha Alós, have been moving the df parameter within Birth date and Death date and age templates – {{Birth date|1926|05|22|df=y}} was changed to {{Birth date|df=yes|1926|05|22}}. This is not the format given in those templates' documentation; all of their examples show optional parameters last. Changing y to yes is also unnecessary, as y is listed as an acceptable argument in the description of the Day first parameter toward the bottom of the docs. Is there a reason I'm unaware of for changing these? Nick Number (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm pinging @Ohconfucius: to anwer your quesitons. Tony (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you add any info to Santiago polanco

Hello, I'm interested in the wiki page of Santiago polanco, the drug dealer, do you have any information pertaining the the page and if so how did you happen upon it. I'm actually in search of this person for personal reasons, please contact me if you do have info or just want to know more about my interest, thank you. Fraticelli72 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It would have been a script run; I have no connection with the topic. Thx. Tony (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Signpost ec

Just hit a ec with you on the signpost article, I will reconcile it and then be gone. Montanabw(talk) 02:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Placing a national flag

Hi Toni. I just want to know if the national flags on Andy Murray article is inappropriate too? I also noticed that almost all tennis players article used national flag next to their name.. Thanks --Stvbastian (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tony1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ike Altgens

Please don't let me let you down. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If I read your response correctly, you lean toward having done a peer review first. Granted, it was nearly three years ago, but the last such attempt got literally zero response; the FAC that followed then died on the vine. It was for that reason I went to GAN, where the article was put through the ringer I was hoping to see. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
GAN isn't much use unless someone good reviews it—and there are so many aspects to review. Getting the prose up to standard relies on your networking with one or two good copy-editors on Wikipedia. Perhaps you're more alive to issues of logic in clause construction having seen the criticisms. It's a form of disengaged reading (print it out, maybe, and go somewhere unusual to mark it up as though you're a third-party, fresh reader who will balk at those lacks of flow.

It's a good reason to extend socially: identifying copy-editors who might be slightly interested in your themes would be a start—then helping them out. Reciprocation is a fine thing. Tony (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No disagreement in principle, but look at the GAN (which I forgot to link, sorry)—Location and MrBill3, primarily, were exceptionally tough, thorough, and fair.
I believe this article to be among the best we have, and I want it to be the best it can be—it would be counterproductive at this point to let it down, or the encyclopedia, or myself. I've done a shit-ton of work; if there's a shit-ton more, I don't mind. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I like that attitude! It does look ok, so you must have been fixing according to reviewers' comments. The lead is the hardest part to get right, since it's so thematically intensive and therefore difficult to organise and word. I do encourage you to keep working up articles like this. Nice. Regrettably, FAC has a very limited part of my wiki budget, so I'd rather be done for the moment. Tony (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I hoped it would be worthy of your support. If not, it's still better with your input than without. Cheers! —ATS 🖖 talk 09:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar
For your inestimable assistance in promoting this article to featured status, with my thanks! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2016}}

Hi,

I see you sometimes add this template, I just don't know what it means. Can you please tell me what its purpose is? Thanks in advance, LouisAlain (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The script I sometimes use adds this to indicate that day–month–year formatting had been chosen for dates in the article. Tony (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for your quick answer; LouisAlain (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Irene Claremont de Castillejo

Hello Tony, thank you for your fixes on my translation from the Spanish Wiki article. While I was doing it, I discovered I went to school with her grandson! I see your dog is quite like my dog: water, walks and treats: it's what makes the world go around. Regards, --79.123.86.193 (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You are most welcome. It's the incomplete part of the human–dog contract where the games are played – mostly how to extract the maximum amount of food from me for the minimum in her effort. Tony (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yahya Jammeh: Difference between revisions

Thanks for your script-assisted cleanup as seen at [[6]] I noticed some changes that did not seem to "visibly change," but were highlighted as changes in the diff. Examples are: Line 54: delegation's and Senegal's; Line 99: Jammeh's; Line 133: Gov't; Line 189: government's; Line 208: Babili Mansa Are these MOS fixes? Were the vowels Cyrillic? I am clueless here, but having seen such edits in the past, I'd like to know what they mean. Got a clue or two for me?--Quisqualis (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Quisqualis, the "curly" glyphs were moved to straight glyphs—a subtle visual different. Don't ask me why, but I recall there's a good reason for this, as debated years ago at the MOS talkpage. Also, the date formats were inconsistent, so I chose one; let me know if you want any other changes. Tony (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I got the utility of most of your edits. However, are you saying that the letters in the italicised words above had been curly before your edit? As in some sort of curly style of typeface? Looking at "delegation’s" versus "delegation's", which letters changed? All of them? Uh, dare we guess why they were curly in the first place? Editors don't have control of glyph styles, do we? I know this is impossibly ignorant of me, but I don't see any difference in typestyle between the two versions. Was the use of curly glyphs vandalism? Please straighten me out here.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Not the letters: the apostrophes. It's ' vs ‘ ... I think people have their "correct straight to curly" switched on by default. It certainly happens when people write their draft in Word and paste it into Wikipeida. There are roundabout ways of typing straights in with your keyboard, but it's a hassle to remember. Tony (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Now I see why a script was helpful here. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

writer

Who in Wikipedia is a good writer? I believe you are one.

I wish to know someone to ask questions about writing. May I ask you? If not, can you recommend some other users? Usernamen1 (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Busy for next day. Depends on how many and what kind of questions you have. Tony (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

Article: Donald Trump

Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in the article. I am not a registered Democratic or Republican Party (USA) member. I have pledged to not edit the article with the exception of improving the first paragraph.

Major questions: What is redundancy? Is it undesirable? Can a 2 sentence structure reduce redundancy concerns?

Question not asked: What specific language you think should be in the article, merely the above major question.

Background: Some see the word "politician" as pejorative or a loaded term. Others may want that type of impression in the article. I am, for the time being, not making a decision but merely want to address redundany. Trump has never held elected office and is not a career politician. Some believe that is reason not to use the term.

I assume, for the moment, that the term is used. I believe that if the term is used in the same sentence as President or President-elect, it is not optimal prose because of redundancy.

Base sentence, which I believe has redundant aspects:

1. Donald John Trump (1946- ) is an American real estate developer, television personality, politician, and President-elect of the United States. He is expected to take the presidential oath of office on January 20, 2017.

Instead, I believe that a second sentence should be used to expand on the first. This 2 sentence structure reduces the redundancy of the base sentence/sentence 1.

2. Donald John Trump (1946- ) is an American real estate developer, television personality, and politician. He is the President-elect of the United States. He is expected to take the presidential oath of office on January 20, 2017. (possible variations include, but are not limited to replacement of "businessman" with real estate developer or other ideas.)

Other examples of undesired redundancy are sample #3 and 4. This is redundant because the only wine that Trump sold was Trump Wine (just like the only political position he held is President-elect, never mayor or senator or a career politician):

3. Donald John Trump (1946- ) is an American real estate CEO, winemaker, and maker of Trump Wine. The only wine he has ever marketed was Trump Wine.

4. Donald John Trump (1946- ) is an American businessperson, businessman, politician, and President-elect of the United States.

Again, my focused question is that of redundancy and prose (if a 2 sentence structure with the 2nd sentence expanding on the first and not jammed together helps address the redundancy issue. No editor in the Donald Trump talk page has commented on redundancy and may not have the editorial expertise to make a judgement, unlike you. Thank you. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Here We Come A-wassailing

Merry Christmas! Better not open the box! The Bishonen Conglomerate talk 11:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC).

The Signpost barnstar

The Signpost Barnstar
Thank you for your service to the community at the Signpost. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --Pine✉ 23:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wary though I am

of mottos, credos, etc, I do see the appeal of the second sentence of this. -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Japan

Sorry, can't help you. My Japanese is abysmal, embarrassingly enough, and I only use JP Wikipedia occasionally. I'd think WP:JAPAN would have people who actually know what they're doing and could help. --Calton | Talk 13:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, I just voted somewhat below you in an RFA. I use this syntax highlighter, and your signature caused it to highlight everything below your signature, making the highlighting useless. Could you please change the closing font tags to remove the extra space (so it reads </font> exactly)? The highlighter is a bit picky about html tags. This wouldn't change the visual output, only the highlighting within the editing window. Thanks. kennethaw88 • talk 03:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a space before the closing angle-bracket, which I've closed. Does that fix the problem? Tony (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Almost; could you also change the second tag within the talk page link? kennethaw88 • talk 17:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
How's that now? Tony (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Great! thanks. kennethaw88 • talk 03:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy 2017!

Happy New Year! Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hope your year is prosperous! Valerie Mantle 1970 (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and question

Tony,

You probably don't remember me, but back in ~2009 you helped me copy edit the list of cutaneous conditions which has since become a feature list and even made it to the main page. Thank you!

Question, would you be willing to given your two cents here [7] regarding the quality of the copy editing of acne vulgaris. I still think that article needs more work before becoming a FA, but copy editing is not my strong suit. If you think the article looks good, then I'd be happy to drop my concerns regarding this issue.

Regardless, thanks again for your help in the past! --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I remember. It looks good on cursory scroll-through, but I don't know what the standards and protocols are for medical articles. I'm a little busy doing stuff for the upcoming edition of the Signpost. Tony (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Apropos of disfiguring and repellent skin conditions, won't you help in the mission to stamp out featuritis? -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hoary, I hope those people examine your diff to learn about editing! Tony (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Tony1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Signpost Barnstar

The Signpost Barnstar
Thanks for this wonderful interview. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, Rhododentrites. Tony (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 It was lovely, deeply human, richly detailed, and downright inspiring. Thank you for taking such interest and care with it. Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Another one
The Special Barnstar
You deserve a special barnstar for writing What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?. Great work. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of you, and kind of Jake above. Tony (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I have also shared the article. The organization I work for has an "accessibility" portal, I'll try to make sure that they also read it. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Drafting an RFC on narrow-gauge railway titles

See my draft at User:Dicklyon/rfc#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge. I invite anyone who wants to help make it a neutral question and productive discussion to make tweaks there, or make suggestions, or start your own alternative proposal. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Default width of thumbnail images

Hi Tony,

Thanks for that. I think there's an error in the percentage: 40px is more than 20% more, not 50%. The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Red, could you please link me to what you're referring to? Tony (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about your user page. The RedBurn (ϕ) 11:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
ϕ—Ah, I see what you're talking about. No, it's squared. 49%. Tony (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
You should change "an increase of almost 50%" to "an area increase of almost 50%" to clarify your point. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Pouncing

I've been wanting to pick up the lost thread at this discussion, and since your workload's listed as just 3 right now, I thought I'd pounce. EEng 05:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So... the ol' silent treatment, eh? EEng 05:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been really really tired, from client work. And the Signpost when close to cycle. Tony (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello, senpai! It's great to see you're still here. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 18:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

A voice from a previous life. I'm glad you're back! I don't have much time to spend on WP at the moment, but it usually gets easier after March. Tony (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Busy as always, I bet. I'm super rusty at technical writing/copy-editing in general, as I've spent most of the last few years working on indie video games and participating in e-sports. I think I've retained some of the old skill set, even though it's been 7+ years: [8]. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Date format

Hi, Tony1,

"|date=March 17" - Please see: 2007-04-15 = Acceptable. This style is comfortable if editing in different WPs as I often do. bkb (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be "acceptable", but it's crap for most readers. Tony (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Melbourne in May

Hi,
I enjoyed your 2016 interview with Maher. Are you thinking of going to either Melbourne Knowledge week or Melbourne meetup 33?
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, TS. I'm not much of a traveller, and getting to Melbourne would be a major hassle (I live in a region). Tony (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Ha, no problem. Since moving to Aus from Britain, I have got a new appreciation for what distance really means! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you think Manchester and Bristol are far from each other? Nah-ah. Tony (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

marriage

Boyfriends Luhle (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Luhle – ?? Tony (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

An update from the Sustainability Initiative

Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative!

Hi, Tony1! Thank you again for supporting the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 200 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.

What's new?

We are writing you this message because there is great news: The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has finally passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Also, we have created a cool logo and found a nice name for the project which you can see on the right :-)

What's next?

Currently, we are working with Wikimedia Foundation staff to make sustainability a key priority for the selection of a new location for Wikimedia servers in Singapore. Also, we have presented the Wikimedia Foundation with a green energy roadmap to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.

Please help!

Let's keep this project moving forward – and there are several ways in which you can help:

  • Ask other Wikipedians to sign the project page as well – this way we can show the Wikimedia Foundation that this is an issue that the community really cares about.
  • Talk to Wikimedians you know about the importance of reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement.
  • Improve and translate the project page on Meta.

If you have any questions, you can contact us on on Meta. Again, thank you very much for your support! --Aubrey and Gnom (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia campaign update

I'm writing you this followup message, as you took the time to vote in support of a Wikipedia banner campaign for the introduction of Fair Use in Australia.

After much planning and coordination with the WMF, Australian Digital Alliance, and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as of Monday the banner-campaign is active on English Wikipedia to a portion of logged-out readers in Australia (technical details). The banners direct people to this page on Meta: FairCopyrightOz. That page, alongside lots of information, further directs people towards the campaign website faircopyright.org.au where Australians are invited to write to their local MP to express support of Fair Use. If you are interested in supporting this campaign, please, send a letter yourself using the template letter provided at that link.

Furthermore, and with the support of the ADA & EFA, we have received fantastic media coverage - with article "Fair Use: Wikipedia targets Australians in bid to change the law" appearing on page 2 of the Sydney Morning Herald and page 10 of the Melbourne Age on Monday's edition. It was for a time the 3rd most read article the Fairfax website, and Fair Use was "trending" on Twitter in Australia. We are running the account @FairCopyrightOz on twitter, and we are tracking other press-mentions on the talkpage on Meta.

Today, day 2, we published a detailed post about the campaign on the Wikimedia Blog, ran an "Ask Me Anything" Q&A session on the Australia page in Reddit, and [by happy coincidence of timing] the article History of fair use proposals in Australia appeared on the en.wp mainpage as a Did You Know. [The creation of that "history of..." article was a specific request arising from in the community consultation in which you voted].

And, most importantly, in a little more than a day nearly 800 letters to MPs have been sent encouraging them to support the Productivity Commission's recommendation to adopt Fair Use in Australia. I urge you - please add your own message.

Sincerely, Wittylama 17:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I'd done my duty already; I urge other Australian en.WPians to take their own supportive action. Tony (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

unable to see you at the sydney meetup

any thoughts?

At this stage I am in process of writing a report about discussions in Australia about https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017 the cycle 2 of the broader wikimedia strategy -

You may well have responded elsewhere - but if you at all interested - not the slightest bother if you are not - please feel free to contact on or off wiki - thanks JarrahTree 05:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

That's because, as usual, they organised it on one of the 29 days of each month that I'm not Sydney. Thanks for asking. I find it hard to comment on the strategy discussions because they seem so vague, undirected, and sprawling. Tony (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response -

Well thankfully I cannot take the blame for all of that (my apology for the date - very hard to avoid - I was in town for two days) .... (no blame for the sprawling nature of the five themes or five subsidiary questions) ... What I would like to ask you then, is in the general play of things - which of the five themes would you consider the most important for the future of wikipedia (I have tried to simplify terminology and context): - working on wikimedia projects and...

  • as an inclusive community
  • dealing with rapid technological change
  • as a globalised movement
  • as a brand of respected source of knowledge
  • as to engagement with other knowledge communities

It would be very easy to take issue with my form of synthesizing the specific theme - what would be more useful however would even just one my attempts at summarising, and considering for example set of questions1 -

  • What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
  • How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
  • Focus requires trade offs. If we increase our effort in this area in the next 15 years, is there anything we’re doing today that we would need to stop doing?
  • What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
  • Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?


To give you an idea of the process - in most cases the getting to a full and detailed context of the five questions was not in the main possible because of a range of contexts within the discussions - the important aspect was identifying the favoured theme. JarrahTree 08:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS:OVERLINK

Hello, Tony. There is a discussion at Talk:Ivor Novello, currently, regarding whether or not to link his nationality in the Lead sentence as follows: Welsh. If you have an opinion about this, feel free to comment there. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Dear Tony1, thanks so much for your edit to HaMidrasha - Faculty of the Arts. I definitely agree with you on the topic of overlinking. Wasn't aquainted with the term, but now that I was introduced to it on your user page, I feel quite stupid for overlinking all these years... It's a great accomplishment that you managed to push the standard against a stubborn opposition.

Regarding the transfer you did, from "HaMidrasha - Faculty of the Arts" to "HaMidrasha – Faculty of the Arts" (hyphen to en-dash). I'm afraid that because the vast majority of users cannot and will not know what an en-dash is, and therefore surely don't know how to type it, that the article will be less accessible. What do you think? Also, regarding your comment about the translation I'd be glad to think about it together with you. The original word order is indeed "Faculty of the Arts - Hamidrasha" but I find that very unuseful for the users. Especially for the "suggest/autocomplete" feature. I think the current translation is rather ok, though not perfect. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts. Best, Pavner (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, read MOS:DASH now, so I understand the policy. Will wait for your thoughts re translation. Best, Pavner (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Pavner, it's ok! Google searches and article searches within Wikipedia compensate for these typographical differences; I expect that was your concern. On the translated "the" in the title, I first thought you meant "Faculty of Arts", but in English that refers to the humanities in general. Upon reading the article further, I realised that the faculty deals with the fine arts ("arts" really meaning "art", as in painting, sculpture, and the performance arts). That's why I left the "the" in. Was I right? Tony (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Editorial: Core models and topics

Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago.

The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005.

Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable.

In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed.

Links


Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Charles Matthews (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, redundant redundancy

Depicts me scrutinizing various articles to check for redundancy. Thanks for the help!

Pediabear (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Hello Tony1,

as you probably guessed while editing my work, I am a beginner on Wikipedia. After each contribution on Wikipedia I check the next day how I was doing and if the " Wikipedia-Detectives" found mistakes. You are an experienced User and I am glad of what you have done. I saw that you deleted the links to Websites and images. I admit, I thought I had to give always the source from where I got the information. One word to the source I use, it is absolutely reliable, otherwise I would not have done it. There is so much I still have to learn and it is at times overwhelming. I shall study your advices here on your talk page. The deceased French author deserves every minute I invest in (and future) Wikipedia pages.

Thank you very much for fixing my mistakes. Have a nice day. Best to you, Laramie1960 Laramie1960 (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Laramie, thanks for your kind words. Tony (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Kurihama, Yokosuka

Hi @Tony1: Thanks for looking over one of the pages I added translated content to from ja Wikipedia. I see that you removed several flagicons from the infobox for a population settlement, citing "Do not emphasise nationality without good reason". That discussion is about living people. There seems to be a precedent set to use flagicons for municipalities on ja Wikipedia. Also the same seems to be the case on en Wikipedia such as for London, New York, Amsterdam. These articles are B Class or higher, including London which is GA class. I used the instructions here Template:Infobox settlement for the use of flag icons. Can you please revert those edits to the way you found them please? Or am I not seeing something I should with all this? I've been working through a couple of hundred articles neededing infoboxes posted at WP:JAPAN, and many of them I've already finished are on human settlements, and there's still a lot more. I'd like to be clear moving forward. Cheers, Dr.khatmando (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Flag icons should generally be limited to places in which nationality needs to be emphasised—whether of individuals or places. They are usually disruptive or decorative, and when we audit the ones you mention, those icons will likewise come under question. Tony (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tony1: Yes that's how I understand they would be used. If for nothing else, I think that flags would be necessary to designate geographical locations. When I look to articles on human settlements during the Empire of Japan, towns in Manchuria with Japanese names need flags to identify jurisdiction and geographical location at a glance. It's helpful for a reader (especially for someone like me who has poor sight), to easily identify at a glance, if the article they are about to read, is about Ipswich UK, or Ipswich Australia etc . They are fit for that purpose, and not merely "decorative". WP:INFOBOXFLAG seems pretty clear on this. Just so you know some of the other pages on human settlements you changed have been reverted so there is some confusion over what is the best outcome. Dr.khatmando (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll be reinstating those edits where there is no need to "stress nationality". You should not be reinserting unnecessary flags. Tony (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tony1: Good oh. Thanks for your collaboration and I appreciate the discussion. Dr.khatmando (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

Thank you for your efforts to reach implementation of the gender-neutral language guidelines!! For non-binary and agender people this is a matter of considerable importance, not least to lessen invisibility. Mangostaniko (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


  • Have you been digging around in the WT:MOS archives? Quite a drama it was, but a long time ago. Thanks for your kind words. :-) Tony (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

FAC

Always good to see you at FAC; prose reviewers are few and far between. So are opposes, to be honest, which tends to be why reviews drag on. If reviewers opposed early on, I think we would see fewer nominations lasting months. Whenever you have the time, it would be a pleasure to see more of your reviews. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, that's very kind of you. I'll try to do a little more, but things are busy off-wiki. I've virtually given up writing for the Signpost, too. I don't intend to leave the site, though. Tony (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Tony1/Most poorly wikilinked article award

It's a pity that this has gone dormant, or I might have gone for it with my current favourite - of. Yes, you guessed it - it wasn't actually Game of Thrones, but near enough to make no difference... Narky Blert (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Ieeewww! But thankfully the situation has improved. In the early days of smart linking there were rich pickings, everywhere. Nowadays it's usually articles imported from foreign-language Wikipedias that need treatment. They all seem to link with scatterguns. Tony (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit

I want to let you know that your script-assisted "fixes" actually screwed up a huge number of links and capitalizations in this Signpost article, which ended up publicly visible for half a day. Please, please, please review all your scripted edits before you save them, especially on something as visible as the Signpost. —swpbT go beyond 12:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

swpb—There's a non-breaking space issue, which I'll alert User:Ohconfucius about. But the links and caps? Nothing wrong with those changes. Tony (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Look again. Isotope, wheel, and propeller are not proper nouns. —swpbT go beyond 23:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Right, I see, although that is not "a huge number" as you claim. The script identifies where a pipe repeats a link-name and removes the pipe. Here, incompetently, the pipe was used to downcase that name. We can't be responsible for such incompetence, and given the number of articles that are improved through its use, and the small number of instances of this incompetent linking, it comes down to just fixing it manually. Why don't you? Tony (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Um, what? You are responsible for your edits. Not me, not the person whose script you're using. You. Extremely disconcerting that you can't acknowledge that. Those were not the only errors in that edit, even if you had a reason for each of the relevant links you removed, which I find hard to believe. And I did fix them for you manually. Even veteran editors need to be able to acknowledge their mistakes. —swpbT go beyond 00:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
swpb—OK, all good. I usually do pick up errant things like that. Thx for fixing. Tony (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The script does not insert &nbsp. It removes them, but only where they are within date strings. Somebody clearly went overboard, by putting in excess of 200 of the darn things in the article, and it was now't to do with the script. You need to check the history of the relevant article before pointing the finger, thank you very much. As to the use of pipes to lower-case wikilinked words, this move is redundant as the Metawiki software accepts terms employing a lower case opening letter in most cases instead of upper case, so yes, it was incompetent piping. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
And if you ask me, as for the links restored in this edit, the vast majority of those terms are known to people who have achieved B1 level in English. There is no such need to create a sea of blue by linking these. -- Ohc ¡digame! 18:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

RM / Technical request

FYI, This move request is from a sock of the locally and globally banned Tobias Conradi. Many such moves have already taken place via the RM queue. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Spaceman! Tony (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your false claim "usually not done" related to Abkhazia

Did you lie on purpose? Are you anti-Abkhazian? Thanks to you Abkhazian districts continue to be represented different from these: [Tony removed huge list].

  • Calm down. I had no idea where these districts are, and nor does it matter. It's not the English WP's normal style to upcase such words. Go to the German WP for that. And lying is by definition on purpose. No, I didn't lie; nor did I make a mistake. We look forward to contributions using your knowledge of that part of the world. Tony (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Now you stick to the false claim while having been presented counter-evidence makes the hypothesis that you lied more likely to be true. Why did you remove the links to the evidences [9]? Why did you do it if not for protecting your mistake or lie to be uncovered on your talk page? 78.55.218.158 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
      • The huge number of examples you gave (a few would have been sufficient) all began with "District". The first character of a name is normally capped by default. Tony (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
        • "a few would have been sufficient" - that was done in the RM, which you opposed. What exactly did began with "District"? Do you refer to the category names? Well, the category name start with "District", so can hardly be used for justifying capitalisation. What can justify the capitalisation are the articles - the RM was related to an article - that are named in the form "X District". In the RM I gave 4 categories containing such articles, on your talk page I gave ~75. This is also the standard for instances of other hundreds of other classes. It is done all over enWP, except for some items in India. It is never "X classname", but allways "X Classname". See Category:Country subdivisions by country where three forms exist: "X", "X (classname)", "X Classname". Washington County is a dab page that lists several examples for the third form. 77.179.185.167 (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.234.85 (talk)
  • There are many examples on WP that accord with the guidelines—that is, downcased. I don't understand why this is such an emotional issue for you. The guidelines exist to make it easier to read, and are in accordance with widespread decapping in English over the past few decades. Tony (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It is entirely this emotional behavior that has been causing disruption across multiple projects, he's been banned on en for close to a decade but continues this crusade here, and he's been banned at a couple of other projects too before a global ban was enacted via discussion at Meta a couple of years back. Nothing good comes off of trying to have a discussion with him. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Spaceman. To the anonymous user: I'm sure you could interact productively with the community. I hope you don't think capitalisation practice is some form of cultural imperialism: it's not. My best. Tony (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Tony1
It's capitalist exploitation. EEng 06:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • RE "I'm sure you could interact productively with the community." - and things are easier if people listen and use truth, not spread false claims like you did
  • RE "There are many examples on WP that accord with the guidelines—that is, downcased." - "the guidelines" don't say that. MOS:NAMECAPS. But, can you give any example outside India (SpacemanSpiff-country), where an article title is written "X type" and not "X Type" where type/Type is a name of a class of territorial entities (district, state, province, county)? 77.180.247.217 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Proper names of computer models

Don't move them back. They are proper names and are properly capitalized. Famartin (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Be more specific. A quick search of the page you linked to revealed no instance of either computer or model. Famartin (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

First, raise it on the talk page before changing the format of a page if you don't want to be "ordered about". Second, who cares what's normal, I'm getting your attention. Third - There are multiple examples there which are capitalized such as Biba Model and Access Control Matrix. In any case, the page you linked to clearly says that proper names are capitalized, and capitalization is used in accordance with standard practice. A quick couple of Google searches makes this plain: thousands of characters of some link removed. Its not rocket science here. All you needed to do was do a little actual work, review common usage, and you would have seen that they are capitalized. Famartin (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't respond to rank rudeness. Lift your ass off my talkpage. Tony (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
You're the one who started to use profanity. LOL because you know you're wrong on this. Famartin (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's see what the experts say. If you could calm down for 12 or 24 hours? I'm busy now. Tony (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Dicklyon, who's no stranger to computer models, says: "It's possible that a computer program or model would have a proper name. For "Climate Forecast System" at NCEP, I see caps only in headings and in defining acronyms, so I'd say downcasing is justified, and treat CFS or CFSv2 as the proper name if it has one.

See books."

It looks as though I should be more careful in editing for case this area. But when you conduct google surveys, do take care to distinguish the commonly used initial-cap formatting in titles and (what WP doesn't allow per se) in acronym expansions. There are tricks to excluding the former from google ngram searches. Tony (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and that's the only one I looked at. Happy to discuss more if you don't see an obvious agreement. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Proper names of all kinds of things

In the past months you seem to have moved a lot of pages (hundreds), of which many involved used were not happy (reading just a fraction). You particularly seem to like renaming names with capitals. The biggest problem I see with the way you operate is that you don't start a discussion but just do it. Now sometimes that's a good thing, but the way you do it gives a lot of irritation. Do you ever read back the articles you have moved? I think you cannot continue doing this and I suggest you stop it now. I will otherwise bring this to the attention of admins. Robijn (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in as lurker ... Robijn, admins aren't really interested in hearing content disputes. The way to bring this to the attention of interested editors is to challenge specific moves or sets of moves, first here at the talk page of the user that did the move, and then at the talk page of one or more of the articles if you don't have agreement; or you can ask for a move back to WP:RMTR. But be aware that Tony is acting, as I frequently do, in an attempt to move toward compliance with WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS; assertions of "proper name" without evidence of consistent capitalization in sources isn't likely to get you anywhere in opposing such moves. I know Tony and I have each made a few mistakes, but the great majority of these moves go unchallenged, and of the few that do get challenged the majority hold up with consensus in RM discussions. So pick your battles and WP:AGF. Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dicklyon, Thanks for your comment. I understand the kind of moves your mention, that's why I wrote that it's sometimes good. But I think Tony1's are too often wreckless actions, as he doesn't appear to look back at all (I infer that from reading the talk pages where he doesn't write at all). And then it's not good. I would not approach an admin for the contents that I don't agree with, for that I did open a Move request to move back the page that I was involved in. I just see a pattern here that I think is a great disturbance to wikipedia users. These kind of actions will deter users from being active on wikipedia. I am asking for more caution from Tony1.Robijn (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Tony's one of our most deliberative and cautious editors on such matters; WP:IDONTLIKEIT != "you're reckless". The "great disturbance to Wikipedia users" is all the tendentious micro-topical defiance of our title policy, naming conventions, and style guidelines on bases of nationalism, mid-20th-century-English traditionalism, and specialized-style fallacies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Robijn, there's no need to be so aggressive. In the next few days I'll go back and review the pages that might be closer to a grey area WRT capping. Tony (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Tony1.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tony1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font>]] : Tony (talk)

to

[[User:Tony1|<b style="color: darkgreen;">Tony</b>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color: darkgreen;">(talk) </span>]]  : Tony (talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Anomalocaris. But when I paste it in, it says "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags". Tony (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I just pasted it in as my signature, clicked save, and it accepted it. I will now sign this comment, and it will look like you signed this comment, and then I will revert to my default signature and sign again. —Tony (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, back to my default signature. Did you copy the colon after the end? You were supposed to stop at the two right square brackets. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I've just tried again, copying from display mode (you didn't specify which mode) from double square brackets at the start to double square brackets at the end. Still no luck. Tony (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Copying from the display, everything on the line after the line that says "to", up to and including the two right square brackets just before the colon, should have worked. This is what I did when I copied "your" signature into the signature field of my Preference page. I can't understand why it worked for me and not for you. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
[[User:Tony1|<b style="color: darkgreen;">Tony</b>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color: darkgreen;">(talk) </span>]] – that's exactly what I pasted in. Tony (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly what I pasted in. I just pasted it again and clicked "save", but I'm going to revert to my default signature before I sign this. Hmmm ... there is a limit of 255 characters, and this string is way below it, but, after you paste, is there room to add more characters? If not, maybe for some strange reason you have a lower character limit. Is the field empty before you paste? —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This would be slightly shorter and should produce the same output: 

[[User:Tony1|<b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen">(talk)</span>]]

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, your hunch was right: I must have a lower character limit, coz it wouldn't accept any more after I pasted in again. And  SMcCandlish to the rescue: your shorter version worked. So Anomalocaris, do you want me to experiment to determine the actual limit, for other people's benefit? Tony (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
My proposed string has 119 characters.  SMcCandlish's string has 114 characters. It would seem you have a 114 character limit. In my campaign to encourage users to remove lint errors from their signatures, so far, over 60 have done so, and you are the first where a character limit below 255 has been an issue. It is bizarre, and for now I don't plan to do anything about it. I will continue my campaign to encourage users to remove lint errors from their signatures, and if another user emerges where a character limit below 255 is an issue, I will report the multiple cases, probably at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Meanwhile, as you have more familiarity with exactly what you are doing, if you want, you could report it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), or wherever else makes sense to you, and if you do, please ping me. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, Anomalocaris. You might consider using "efforts" rather than "campaign" in a wiki environment! Tony (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Heh. Yeah, this is a WP:GNOME work for standards compliance and future-proofing, not a PoV pushing exercise!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Tony's limit is somewhere between 114 and 118, pin-pointable by adding back in some of the optional spaces or semicolons. Anyway, my blind guess would be that it's an unintentional artifact of the age of the account.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Culm Measures

As I say on the talk page, most sources seem to use capitals C and M. I'm aware that this may, in fact, originate in some confusion in the literature between the proper name for the river Culm, and the material "culm" for which the geological formation is named - and I'm also aware that some sources do not capitalise the word Measures. But, at least, I think there needs to be some discussion of the matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle: Ah, thanks for that. I did scour the thing for the origin of "Culm", and got the wrong idea from the derivation from the Old English for "coal" (see article). I do see a few sources downcasing both words—but can "measures" be downcased? And would it be OK to signularise the title? Tony (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibility of providing your input on a Peer Review for Regine Velasquez's entry

Hi Tony,

I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.

Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I took a quick look. It seems to be of high quality. One glitch I noticed was the capped "C" in the early title "Music Career". Tony (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick glance! Minor glitch fixed. All the best! Pseud 14 (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1/Archive_17&oldid=1145689622"