User talk:Tony1/Archive04

NeXT

Hey there Tony, good to see you still around Wikipedia helping us all out!!

Can you check out this article for grammar and writing quality and point out anything you notice: NeXT.

Thanks!

— Wackymacs 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Yeah, I went through all that RFA crap, and it was really sad - people didn't understand me. The voters there are weird, stupid people. I am not interested in being an admin, of course. There's no rush for the NeXT article, however I am working hard to make it an FA soon! — Wackymacs 06:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

less time for WP until 30 June

Work commitments. I'll try to do a little. Tony 00:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help. I appreciate it. -- Jeff3000 01:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway

I've made a few changes, but am unsure as to how to solve your qualms with points 4 & 5 - feel free to make edits to solve these points yourself. Thanks for the thumbs up in regards to the article's quality - getting your green light is usually a good indication the article will pass FAC when nominated. michael ^talk 02:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

IIT Article

Hi,

You can sure discuss as well as change the article. All I meant to say was that your conversations with Blacksun were sort of moving in the regime of debate. I wanted to sayis that even if you don't respond, I will be following up. Its just that most people expect me to effect big changes in the article. I got a new internet connection at my home today so hopefully things will go faster. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done a major copyedit on the IIT article. Please have a look. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal request regarding STHS

Yes, I know, you're probably sick of hearing about this, by now. But. I'm here to respond to your request that the Mediation Cabal attempt to calm down the situation. If you're no longer interested, feel free to disregard this message. If you are interested, I'll ask that you try to put any harsh feelings behind you, and remember that you and all of the editors around you are all trying to build the best Wikipedia possible; disagreements in how to do so shouldn't get in the way of our good faith towards each other. I know firsthand that Wikipedia can sometimes be daunting, especially once Admins get into the mix. Likewise, I can sympathize with those who spend their days reverting vandalism after vandalism; after awhile, there gets to be a sort of urgency to each little thing, and you get tired of having what always seems to be the same discussion. I've noticed that the admin in question does have a history of protecting this particular article.

Now, the link in question does have some issues, for and against it; I find things to sympathize with and things to fault in all parties, here. For the time being, my interest is in calming things down. I would appreciate it if you (along with any other involved editors) would agree to set aside hard feelings in the pursuit of a better Wikipedia -- our reputation on an encyclopedia depends heavily on interactions between editors. All that much better if we can all agree to work side-by-side, and do so in a public, transparent forum for all to see. Let's try to make this a positive experience for everyone.

I have nothing but respect for your experience, and your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for the time you've taken to read my message, and any subsequent time you might put into this case.

The particular case page can be found here. As you're probably aware, the cabal has no official authority, but in this case that may work to everyone's advantage. Luna Santin 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Glad to be of any service, really -- I wish I'd been around a bit more for the bulk of the discussion, but I had work tonight, and will again tommorow. Seems like things actually calmed down pretty quick; my ego wants to attribute that to my extremely suave talk page messages, but the reality is probably just that bringing things to a different, inherently neutral middle ground, had a big calming effect. For that, we'd have you to thank!

Looking over all of the diffs (from about May to present), I saw the pattern seemed to be a failure to assume good faith. In a very real sense, an administrator's job is to always get their way; after awhile, they get tired of always being second-guessed, always having to make concessions, and it just gets so much easier to think "Oh, those vandals," instead of whittling down the differences between viewpoints and working as true equals. On the flipside, it's easy for us non-admins to just see a giant conspiracy all the time, especially when there's any perception that the people in power are abusing their positions or just plain being rude. When we all go into a sticky situation expecting such aggressive vibes, the tendency is more to attack and try to win, than to try and find ways to accomodate all positions so that everybody's happy. It's hard for me to say who'd be "at fault," in that situation. I just prefer to say it's everyone's obligation to improve difficult situations -- fortunately, sometimes all it takes to reverse things is one step in a good direction, and then sometimes people remember the goals they have in common.

Anyway. I'm rambling, probably. Tend to do that in the wee morning. Thanks for referring the case; it seems to have helped, and in any case I enjoyed the learning experience. Luna Santin 12:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Enjoy this Barnstar of Diligence for raising standards across the board. Keep at it. michael ^talk 13:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

Hi,

I really appreciate all your comments on the Knights of Columbus FAC page. I understand "strategic distance" but I put in for a peer review and only got one responce. I also wrote on the talk pages of the other major contributors asking for their help, but not much was forthcoming. I see from your user page that you occasionally go through articles and copyedit them. Would you mind editing the Knights article, or could you reccomend someone from your "secret list"? Thanks! Briancua 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One of my closest friends is a heathen homosexual, but this doesn't automatically make him evil and the Church doesnt want him (or you) to burn in hell because of it. Then again, I think you are smart enough to know that already. Your also smart enough to know that the overwhelming majority of African women - and men for that matter - are not Catholic and if they are not going to following the teachings on extramarital sex then chances are they are not going to follow the teachings on prophylactics either. Since your introductory comments were not germane in the first place, I’ll just assume they were rhetorical.

Having said that, I have tried reaching out. You may have seen that it’s a candidate for the Catholic Collaboration effort of the week and like I said, I asked all the major contributors for their help. Little came of it. Since it is merely copyediting, it doesn’t need a practical Catholic’s help – it just needs someone with a good eye, and you clearly have one. I will look for others, and if you really don’t want to do it, I would appreciate the name of someone who might be willing. Thanks! Briancua 15:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done more copyediting to the Knights of Columbus, as did someone you suggested. I also made a new comment on its FAC page to this effect. Would you mind looking it over again? Thanks! --Briancua 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Monobook tool

Have you found the 'dates' and 'units' tabs from the monobook tool useful? bobblewik 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To clear your cache on Mac:

Safari on Mac:

• Click on 'Safari' menu, select 'Empty cache...'

IE on Mac OSX:

• Click on 'Explorer' menu, select 'Preferences...'

IE on Mac OS9 and ealier:

• Click on 'Edit' menu, select 'Preferences...'

Regards bobblewik 11:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois - peer review

I have recently placed this article up for peer review. The one thing left before this article is nominated for FAC is to go over the prose. However, given that I have asked you several times before about looking over the prose of several past FAC articles (and hence I don't want to burden you again with another request), I was wondering if you know of anyone else who is also dedicated to and skillful in "exceptional prose," especially for FAC articles. Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 18:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure (I don't think the article's peer review is going to run out before then, and hopefully someone else doesn't prematurely nominate it for FA). Pentawing^Talk 05:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the article's time on peer review has expired. I may be placing the article up for FAC soon (just to let you know. Several others have been kind enough to look over the prose though). Pentawing^Talk 16:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAR#Peerage

Done, sorry for the delay, but I'm currently out of the country and with only intermittent internet access. - FrancisTyers · 06:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, looking again, your post was after mine. Can you let me know if there is anything else to add? Do I need to be more specific? Regards - FrancisTyers · 06:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. I can't locate the posting that you refer to. Have I said anything about the Peerage article? Tony 07:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page: Dear Francis: can you specify the criteria that are not met? This is a requirement. Tony 03:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Peerage is the only article I've nominated for FAR. I think we're both confused :) - FrancisTyers · 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Azeris

Figured I'd by-pass the back and forth on the nomination page and just drop you a line. I know of another guy who might edit, but I haven't heard from him in a while. I'll drop him a line again, but he has a backlog and all he does is copyedit, which, hey, if that's his thing all the better, right? He's extremely thorough and did some good copyediting at Iranian peoples so if he could help with Azeris it would be outstanding. I actually catch some things myself everyday, but because I wrote the damn thing, a lot of it just slips past UNLESS i go through and read it all aloud, which would take a lot more time. Besides, it's better to get a second and third set of eyes as you said. Definitely thanks for your help man. Oh and a lot of the support does come from Azeris who want to see the article make it so no surprise there. I'm going by the non-Azeri criticism and you've given the best so far. I'd even be okay with you doing it piecemeal. I asked Raul for a week's extension, which probably is more than is needed. Anyway, all the best. Ciao. Tombseye 07:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You probably know him, he's Silence, who is apparently an admin. now. Not sure how available he is now. Ah, we'll see how things go. Later. Tombseye 07:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Say, AndyZ did a copyedit of the history section. Do you think u could give the rest a quick look through. I mean you've already done the opening and Caucasian theory and history is done so whatever else. Your call as I know we're all busy with real life and you no doubt are worried about Australia's chances in with the World Cup. It seems there aren't many people available to do a thorough copyedit so whatever u can do help, I'd owe ya one. Or other suggestions for copyeditors. Whatever works so that I can be done with the article. I hear that wikipedia has other articles so... ;) Tombseye 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the suggestion. I've gone through the contact phase so hopefully we'll have a copyeditor who can finish things off since we're so close now. Thanks Tony. And you're not fooling me, I know you want the Aussies to make it to the next round! Heh heh. Ciao. Tombseye 17:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

FAR

Thanks a lot Tony. Yes, it was basically me—there was always the chance that it could have been one more thing that generated yip-yap on talk but then never got acted on. When the change was actually made it went smoothly (you, Alabama, and Disco certainly helped that first day). What's good I think is that there should be no more arguing about due diligence. No one can complain that no period was given to address concerns.

The last issue is making sure templates and archiving work properly. Actually, I guess the last issue will always be getting people to actually read the FAs and give full review commentary ;). Marskell 10:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone will always complain about something :-) [1] Sandy 13:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that the complaint is really in regards to the old system as Hugo Chavez is one of the last few to go through that way. The article would probably have benefited from the new system as it would only have been moved to FARC a few days ago rather than delisted. Marskell 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and it would have been more clear that the work needed to be done, other editors were expecting it to be done, and if the work wasn't done, it would be moved to FARC (although I thought that was clear anyway :-) It is a better process. Sandy 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wali Khan

Hi! Khoikkoi s uggested I contact you on an article I am working on. It's about a well known Pakistani opposition leader Wali Khan. Your suggestions on any copy editing it needs will be appreciated!

regards

Zak --Zak 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

light duties until 5 July

Work commitments. I'll drop in daily, but can't do big things. Tony 01:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wali Khan

No worries Tony..thanks for the quick reply! --Zak 16:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica

It had been on the page a total of two weeks so I moved it down. The larger question is "does a review re-start when it moves from minor to major?". I would say no because then you can have things on the page as much as six weeks. We now still have two weeks to work on this particular page. How about I promise in this case to do the copy edit :)... At the end of the day, it's all about people buying into the work. Marskell 08:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you mean that you don't think it needed to go to the FARC section at all? Just leave it in major review and close it successfully after a little while? I guess then we have another question: should the instructions state that all major reviews will necessarily go to FARC? Marskell 11:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My only thought is that there are more options/time given to minors than majors. I would say: if a minor does move to major the total time between the two should not be more than two weeks. That was my thinking with Antarctica. Otherwise, as an informal list of outcomes, your last note seems fine to me.

On a side note, I don't have a clue what to with Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hinduism. It's a no consensus but there are still outstanding objections. Keep FA on the former count, de-list on the latter. I'm not sure what the tradition has been and Raul doesn't seem to like to answer my questions... Marskell 18:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with two weeks minor, two weeks major, is that a subsequent two weeks on FARC (if it gets moved there) means six weeks. Now, I partly initiated this whole business because there was concern that not enough "public time" was given to address things and I don't want to jump too far the other way, but isn't six weeks too long? Marskell 07:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Toledo War article

Hi. I'm not sure if you remember, but I submitted the Toledo War article to FAC about a month ago on behalf of several members of the Wikiproject Michigan. The nomination failed, and one of your objections was that the article was poorly written. On that information, I have gone back and copy-edited the entire article and re-written several portions. I am still quite new to the FAC process, and I was just wondering if, in your opinion, the edits I have made have addressed your concerns, and if the article is now ready for another shot at FAC. I decided that I would rather ask you for your opinion than abuse the FAC process if the article is still not ready. I appreciate any help that you can give, and I look forward to your response. Thanks again. Hotstreets 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IIT again

Hi,

You seemed to have stopped the show after getting me to the edge of my seat. I have done many major copyedits and feel that in order to do anything more, I will need your guidance. Hopefully the article would be up to your standards now. Regards, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Exercises

The exercises are great—I'm really glad that you took the time to put them together. The redundancy ones are especially useful. Obviously you're still working on the flow/paragraph stuff, but it's off to a good start. Something you might consider adding would be a paragraph that requires both organizing and dividing to make it optimal—I don't think I've seen any examples recently, but it shouldn't be too hard to find one. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 14:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornell Changes

Please see the changes to address your objections at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cornell University/archive1. Thank you. —mercuryboard^talk 00:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to remind you again, but you are the last outstanding objection at the Cornell FAC. All of your issues have been addressed. Please see the changes when you get a chance. —mercuryboard^talk 17:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR again

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten our conversation which has been useful. At some point I think I'll write an "informal rules of FAR" or some such thing where we can thrash out issues.

In the meantime, I moved both the Zelda article and the Indian Institutes to the FARC section both of which you nominated. People have responded with changes so perhaps you might want to take another look. I've also started CE'ing Antarctica. Marskell 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned a long time ago that Asperger syndrome was in bad shape, and someone finally nominated it. I just had a look at Schizophrenia, compared to its FA version, and it's another mess. The table of contents alone shows how out of control the article has gotten. I feel too new to Wiki to do the nominating, and am not sure if it needs minor or major review. Sandy 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have gone over Antarctica. Perhaps you might take another look and we can move that one off the FAR. Marskell 12:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ladakh

Hay Tony, hopefully you still remember the Ladakh article. Check it out when you have time, please. deeptrivia (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You asked

Hi,

You asked

Logic of next sentence unclear: success in a variety of professions has resulted in the brand? Surely these two things happened separately ...

as a comment in the IIT article for the sentence

IITians have achieved success in a variety of professions, resulting in the establishment of the widely recognised IIT Brand.

Actually the statement is true. The IIT system produced not just engineers, but entrepreneurs. So wherever they went (despite being only trained engineers), they achieved success. This resulted in the IIT Brand, where people take IITians for granted, assuming they will succeed in any profession they choose. Unfortunately I don't have reliable sources to back this claim. It was discussed in the CBS Documentary, but again, it is not neutral. Please suggest what to do about it. I since the issues (2a) remain unresolved, I am asking for outside help (from an editorial team member). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure I can wait. BTW, I contacted Tito to help me with the article. Hopefully the article will improve by Monday. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Update. Hope you know that FARC commentary has started on IIT article. An update from you on the current state of the article would be helpful for the editors as well as the voters. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

While you review the article, there is one outstanding concern I need help with. In the "Organizational structure" section, there are many sentences that begin with "Under him...". Is there any way such sentences can be rephrased to make things less repetitive. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul Rand

Hey there Tony, I've been working on this article a bit, but someone else wrote most of the new info. Are you interested in copy-editing when you have the time? Thanks! — Wackymacs 15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pachelbel

Yes! Currently I think only the vocal music section and maybe the bits about fugues need to be rewritten so that people wouldn't complain about the thing being too list-weigthy, and the language in a couple of sections could use some copyediting (I think we've discussed that on the talk page there). Do you think the article has good chances of becoming FA?

By the way, I've been working on the Works section for the Bach article here: User:Jashiin/Bachdraft. The first four sections are complete and I've started writing the vocal section, problem is, although I ignore most details that could go into separate articles, the whole is still too big. I was thinking we could work together on it, if you're interested. Jashiin 07:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC

Care to pass an opinion here [2]. Seem to be a worrying amount of boy-scouts supporting, but no authorative view! Giano | talk 11:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard III (1955 film)

Altered your problems with the page, and thanks. If you could provide some more examples, it would be much appreciated. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 10:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your added comments, and I will pursue some WPians, as per your advice. Just a quick question though, do you have any actual problems with the article content wise, or is it all stylistic problems with the text? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I took your advice, and now the WPian who got Casablanca (film) to FA status has given it quite a face lift, prose wise. He's ratted out and fixed many problems similair to the ones that you have pointed out. Thanks again for the advice. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 11:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check out the article again, and perhaps alter your objection. Or not. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC

I was only following what appears to be reasonably common practice, from looking through the other candidates. Sorry. Bridesmill 18:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mustard

I thought you might be interested in WP:MUSTARD, a new style document for music. Tuf-Kat 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Perfect article

Fair enough; I just don't want to see links to the page start appearing as justification for reverts (more than they do now, anyways). How about just leaving a note at the bottom to the effect that even "perfect" articles can still be improved on? Kirill Lokshin 15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Hey, Tony, the folks over on the AS article are working their tails off, trying to save their star. I don't know yet if they're close to making it, but they've given it a very good effort, which we haven't seen on most FAR noms. I know it's a lot to ask, but it would be great if you could lend a copy-edit hand: their effort at least makes them worthy. Sandy 04:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it to the list, Tony. AS is an example of the new FAR process working well: I don't know if they'll keep their star, but they sure are trying! Sandy 11:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you're the best. (Yes, all the handwriting stuff is important and necessary, even with computers. I have no experience with AS, but my son has dysgraphia, and even with a fully-integrated laptop curriculum, he has problems with teachers who just don't accept that he can not write. It's an important accommodation for kids in school, and it affects them a lot before they may be using a computer. It's bad even when they're almost in college, like my son, since his handwriting makes him appear less intelligent than he is.) I know it was a tough article to tackle: I really appreciate the effort ! Sandy 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You devil

Yes, I'd noticed you'd moved it early. Perhaps I'm becoming too much of a wiki-lawyer with the page. Part of me thinks we should just dispense with justice altogether, take the unsourced FAs out behind the barn, and blow their stars off ;). Until that day arrives, I'd like to follow process because not doing so will encourage others to jump the queue ("ah, this one's hopeless, let's just move/remove it now"). Marskell 12:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Committed reviewers: yes, I'm worried. You'll notice Splash's comments on the Talk, for instance. There's much I'm pleased with: the general procedure of the page is working even if there's more bureaucratic stuff to do; there's been a healthy (if still slight) new emphasis on review ahead of generic votes; some pages that wouldn't have received attention if it were still a matter of actually nominating for removal (Antarctica, the Mario page) have received attention. But we still just don't have enough people looking at things. I don't know what to do about it. Marskell 12:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Post something on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates to pick up some of the folks who review there ?? I got involved because I was so shocked at what got past FAC (the Chavez and AS articles). Maybe some folks there will come over. Sandy 12:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, come up with a page with proper focus (FAR, PR, and FAC) and announce it on the village pump and anywhere else that will attract people. Marskell 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and watch instruction creep. A lot of "sign-up" pages like Wiki-projects and what not are a turn off for this reason. Of course, I'm one to talk about instruction creep... Marskell 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Electoral College

I agree with you on removal, but wasn't sure what you found unclear about "Each state has as many electors as it has Members of Congress and Senators." California, for example, has 2 Senators and 53 Members of Congress, so it has 55 electors. Where does the 45 million number come from? I don't see a reference in there to state population, and suspect you are somehow reading "Members of Congress" as referring to something other than the 53 elected Members from California. Sam 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. In my world (law), we solve that one by defining a capitalized term of "Electors" and then using it in caps to show it is a defined term. I'm not sure what to do on Wikipedia, as the word does have multiple meanings, so it may be we have to leave people to sort out the context. Sam 14:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am quite certain someone eventually will fix up this article, but probably not until the next election cycle heats up here in the U.S. At that point, there will be no shortage of political junkies virtually living on the internet. So, someday, somewhere, our comments will be read. Best, Sam 22:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FBI

I would like suggestions not misguided comments please. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 04:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

FARC

For the most part, I think the new system is a pretty good idea. It gives interested parties the opportunity to really fix an article before it being defeatured, thus preventing articles being delisted unnecessarily. It would work a little better, however, if it wasn't strictly necessary to take up the whole time in obvious cases - as is the process with deletion, where a request can be closed early if the result is obvious. Rebecca 14:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. I used to be one of the most stringent critics on FAC, but I've got so many Wikipedia-related projects on my plate these days that I simply don't have time anymore. I think the issue is symptomatic of a broader problem - so much time is being wasted on things like formatting, an overblown focus on vandalism (instead of letting people revert it through their watchlists), and people wasting too much time on process nonsense instead of actually helping the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the RfA process is so badly broken that it openly forces people to do these useless things and not work on the encyclopedia if they ever want to become an administrator these days. As such, we're getting more and more people doing the useless drone work, and simply not enough focusing on the core work of articles. It's got so out of hand that I don't have a clue what to do about it anymore. Rebecca 14:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting comment about the lack of good copyeditors. Though I wonder how one would attract (more) good ones to a volunteer project - and even then actually motivate them to do the copyediting. For example, I see a few users on their userpages claiming to be professional copyeditors in real life but then here they basically revert vandalism, tag articles for deletion etc.. I guess a lot of people come here to relax and try to do what they can but perhaps are already too stressed out or something to do serious copyediting. At least, that is a theory anyway.

P.S. I do not claim to be a good copyeditor, and in fact have learned quite a bit about reducing redundancy etc.. That's why I find it interesting when you object to FACs and such because I am probably not the greatest analyzer of prose :). RN 07:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Could you please copyedit Tom DeLay? You seem to have done a good job of finding grammatical or stylistic errors in it. For example, I have no idea when to use an em dash instead of an en dash. NatusRoma | Talk 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on dashes. It was very helpful. Are you willing to copyedit the article? NatusRoma | Talk 03:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Advice

Thank you for those words, I always considered editing to be the most important task on wikipedia. The point I want to make is that the community seems to think otherwise and pointless chores seem to be more recognised. michael ^talk 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Russia

History of Russia is featured, with four inline citations. Does that get a minor review, major review, or what? Sandy 01:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try my first nomination. 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The article does not need a review. There is a reason the article has fewer inline citations than most FAs, such as George F. Kennan and History of post-Soviet Russia-- a couple of other articles I had written. An article like History of Russia, covering over 1,000 years of history, is mostly laying out elementary facts, such as the fact Ivan the Terrible ruled from 1547 to 1584 and Peter the Great died in 1725. Elementary facts to not require citations. So of course an article on such a general topic is going to have fewer inline citations than most FAs. 172 | Talk 20:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

FARC process questions

• Nomination procedure
  • Place {{FAR}} on the talk page of the nominated article.
  • From there, click on the "add a comment" link.

Can't find an "add a comment" link. Couldn't get past the second step :-) I have a hard time figuring 69KB of "elementary facts", but it's not my area. [3]

Finally found my mistake: FAR has to be capitalized (unlike fac, which is not) ! That's what I get for using my memory, when the instructions are right in front of my eyes. Sandy 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can't decide if autism or schizophrenia is in worse shape, but I think it's best to wait until the imbroglio on Asperger syndrome is resolved before I nominate another. Seems my efforts to improve the article were misguided, and I'm now named as a perp on an AS message board, where they've put out calls for editors to come and revert the article. I learned my lesson: from now on, don't try to help the articles, just vote and keep my head down :-)) I can't write or copy edit anywhere near as well as you, but I do know Puerto Rico a bit, if there's anything I can do. Sandy 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to figure where to go from here: The history of Puerto Rico began ... ay, yay yay !! Sandy 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• A major review should last two weeks. If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list.
  • AS has been on major review for two weeks. What happens next? Does it move automatically to FARC, or do we have to say whether we think deficiencies have been addressed? I suggest it needs wider review by more editors. The article is VASTLY improved (thanks :-) but I am concerned about the quality of some of the references, and the article should be/could be far more comprehensive. On the other hand, they really did a lot to try to retain their star, so it's an example of the process working to the benefit of Wiki. Should I ask for consensus under the Major review, or does it automatically move to FARC for a vote?

• Schizophrenia still needs major review, but I guess I'll wait a bit longer, to see if more editors get involved. Sandy 15:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I was hoping to avoid looking at Phishing :-) Not my cup of tea. I'll go have a look. I think Wikipedia needs to go to FARC, but no one wants to be the person to say so :-) Sandy 14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A few things

Hey Tony. Regarding your comments on adminship, I have watched the page for a year and I understand perfectly what you mean. There's one old rule of thumb that has some truth to it: if you let yourself get passed 5000 edits without running, your chances of success actually decrease because you've been around long enough to annoy people. Frankly, I think I'd pass but who knows—maybe someone will pull out an edit where I used a cuss and twenty people will oppose. In any case, if I do run it won't be until September or there abouts.

As of tomorrow, I'll only be editing intermittently for a month. Keep your eye on the FAR, of course. And I did want to mention that we may be being to hard on the Zelda fellow. He's doing exactly what we'd hoped for: returning to the review and making suggested changes. I made some edits to the page today and I'd like to see it keep status (I realize there maybe a touch of animus against video game pages in general and I sometimes wonder if they should even be FAs—but if it's good enough to go through FAC, it can pass FAR). That's all for now. Cheers, Marskell 16:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I should also add a thank you :). You've been doing a lot of the actual reading we've been talking so much about. Many of the FARs would be without comment if not for you. Keep it up! Marskell 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Antartica review

Hey Tony. I was wondering if your prose concerns in the Antartica article have been addressed. If so I will close the FAR. Joelito (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Distorted text

I can't think of any way to fix this problem - I've received a couple of similar comments from other users. The only way I can think of is to either shortern the bold text or to just remove them. Thanks, Andy _t 21:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Able Archer 83 FAC

Melchoir and I recently took another pass through the article. Did we get all of the things that were bugging you, or do we need to look at it again? TomStar81 23:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Selena FAC

I quickly fixed your objections, I'm not a good so I tried my best. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Hoopydink did a copyedit, I reverted half of it but it still looks good. Can you please review again. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can you help me copyedit the article please, I don't really know how to work with hyphens and grammar. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC bias

Tony can you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Big Brother (TV series): perhaps I should not have opined because of my bias. Thanks. Sandy 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi, if you get a chance could you look over Emu this weekend, it should be more or less filled out by then - I've got a book I still need to chase tomorrow. Great work on FAR and FAC by the way, you're far more patient than I am.--Peta 13:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Charizard

I have heard that the "In other media" section of this article needs cleanup, would you like to help? Minun ^(talk) 13:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, its alright now, I just decided to remove that part because its not really needed Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Banksia brownii copyedit request

Hi Tony,
Would you mind casting a highly critical eye over this article please? We're going to take to WP:GA, then maybe on to WP:FA.
Snottygobble 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy edit it very appreciated, we'll use the time it takes to get through GA to put some distance from the edits of the last few days before FA Gnangarra 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also from me. Excellent copyedit, especially in the ecology section. Just one thing: they were unicode ndashes (not hyphens), which are generally considered preferable to html ndashes. Snottygobble 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If your computer is anything like mine, you can get a unicode ndash by holding down the ALT key while typing "0150" on the numberpad (it doesn't work if you use the numbers on the main keypad). It sounds tedious, but once you get used to it it is much faster than typing "–" and it's a better outcome. Snottygobble 01:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding "usen't" to my vernacular, effective immediately. :-D Snottygobble 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard III (1955 film)

You may want to check out the article again, and perhaps alter your objection. Or not. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

Hi Tony - could you please have a look at this article and give some more specific advice on the improving of prose? We've cleaned up the obvious issues, but your insight is needed to spot any intrinsic issues. This Fire Burns Always 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A favor

Hey Tony I have been meaning to ask you a favor. I wrote an article, History of Puerto Rico, which became featured not so long ago. I feel that the article's prose may not be as sharp as it should be. I meant to ask if you could give it a light reading and point me in the right direction so that when it is featured on the main page it exemplifies our best work. Joelito (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the main contributor. It is not going to the main page anytime soon and I know the page has many problems. Joelito (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Royal Grammar School Worcester

Hi, could you perhaps take a look at this article, as I'd like to resubmit as a FAC, and you seem to be a 'regular' at the FAC page, and clearly are a very good person at spotting flagrant misuses of phrases, and superfluous material abound (I did deliberate elongate phrasing of my cordial request to perhaps annoy, or hopefully amuse and delight you)! --Wisden17 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, that would be super. I won't be around for that week, so if you do notice any problems I may be a little slow in correcting them. I'd like to nominate it again for FA status sometime in July really so if you could get it done at the beginning of July that really would be great. Many thanks, --Wisden17 11:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, was wondering whether you had had a chance to peruse the article yet, and find lots of awful errors ?! [My attempt at an interrobang]. --Wisden17 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks for taking a look. Most of your comments however I would have to disagree with. The intial phrase "before 1291" is a common historical way of referencing this sort of situation. Metirc system in the UK is not used for distances of this nature usually (mainly as road signs are in miles, and so are speed limits (miles per hour)). Do you really have an objection to the "rumour" in the last paragraph. There is strong evidence (namely geo-physcial surveys) to suggest something is contained within the building, however no excavation work has ever been authorised.

Who would you recommend on Wikipedia to take a look at the rest of the article? --Wisden17 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the three FA which are schools and have left messages on the Schools' Wikiproject all to little avail. I'll change the date as I can see it may be confusing, although it is a pretty common historical way of dating. I'll add in a metric conversion as well for that pesky 96%! The rumour is mentioned in Wheeler's book, and I have referenced it. I'll add some more info about it in the main article. Thanks for you help. --Wisden17 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Architecture of Norway

You objected to the nomination of Architecture of Norway. I am working on the improvements you have suggested. If you could take a look, I think you will see promising progress. Please reconsider your objection, or let me know what more you would like to see to support it. --Leifern 03:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

You were kind enough to offer comments on this article when it was a featured article candidate last December. I've completely rewritten the article and hope to re-submit it as a FAC. In the interim, I have posted it at Wikipedia:Peer review and hope you'll offer comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 16:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

As you had requested, this page has been extensively copyedited by users Rama's Arrow and Sundar. Please point out if there is anything you still wish to be corrected. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Coke + template

Don't worry, I had noticed the comments at top. I just thought the changes appeared fairly significant and that I should be diligent and see if anyone wanted to look afresh. I doubt there'll be a dramatic turnaround.

As for the template, I think it should emphasize one process with two distinct components. In fact, I almost wonder if it should make mention of removal in the first sentence. Perhaps "it has been nominated to FAR to help it improve...", then components one and two, leave a comment, etc. I'll take a look. Marskell 18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See what you think now. Marskell 18:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR on Race

Tony, I tried a minor review for my first nomination, before taking on articles in need of major review. Since it's my first nomination, and I have a lot to do eventually, can you make sure I got all the pieces for the FAR on Race in the right place? WP:MCOTW has a trophy box on their WikiProject page, but they don't seem to try to keep up with the status of those articles, so I'm working my way through that list. It really troubles me when FA medical articles aren't maintained, because people with health needs can be misled by the star. Sandy 22:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Phishing Article

I think the article should be moved to the major review list first. Unfortunetly, I kinda lack the time to move it while preparing for grad school. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved phishing to major review for the following concerns: lead, images, prose and expansion of AOL section. I believe they can be easily addressed. Joelito (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor, major, etc.

Yes, I agree we should be able to go from Minor to FARC. On whether we should merge Minor and Major, I see pros and cons. I personally pay no attention to Minor, unless it's a topic I know. As you said, I figure someone else will get to it. And, it looks like Minor is being used as a substitute for peer review in some cases. So, on those counts, we could lose it. On the other hand, will people hesitate to submit articles that are in trouble to a Major review? I really didn't know where to put Race, so I put it in Minor in case others didn't think it was so bad. So, I can see reasons to go either way. If we do make a change, I'd say not to move too fast on it. What if all the Project talk messages I put out result in a rush of activity? We'd have our hands full ... Sandy 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant - sounds good. Sandy 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My comments ended up inside the pink box on the talk page, so I temporarily deleted them ... how do we make the box end, and comments begin? I don't speak boxes :-) Sandy 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We're still in the pink :-) Sandy 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've just got a pink computer. Maybe it's an IE issue? But I'm pink LOL !! Don't worry about it -- I got hit by lightening, and I'm on an old laptop. Sandy

FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aleksandr Vasilevsky needs your input. Sandy 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Selena FAC

Ok I removed an unsourced paragraph, and not much more really needs sourcing as they can be looked for in the refs already. Hoopydink Staringold also did a checkover of the article and the copyedit is complete. Please review again and I'll quickly fix any mistakes. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Baden-Powell House now?

Hi Tony, you were kind enough to leave some comments on the wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baden-Powell House page, recommending prose improvements. Several people, including native English speaking, have had a look at it, and numerous prose improvements have been deployed throughout the article. As you have an apparent eye for it, would you be so kind as to have another look, to see where further improvements might be called for? Feel free to make changes yourself. Your help would be much appreciated, even if only further recommendations (or revoting) on the FAC page. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

Prince

Tony, can you look on my talk page, two messages up from the bottom, re: Prince? There was an FAR today that the nom deleted because he realized the star wasn't legit -- who watches for that?

Responded to you on my talk page. Sandy 02:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was a nice FAR request to work on the article, and when I prompted the editor to contact the original author, he realized the star wasn't legit. He removed the FAR. He said he was going to call it to the attention of others, so I guess that's that, but I thought someone was "in charge" of that sort of thing <shrug?> Sandy 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on Aleksandr Vasilevsky FAC

Hello,

You objected at the first version of the Aleksandr Vasilevsky article. Since then, a detailed copyedit was performed by several users (Mzajac, Kirill Lokshin, ScreamingEagle, Mno and others).

Can you please review the article and point out remaining deficiences, if any, and change your vote if it is necessary? :)

Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No more Minor/Major review

Per "less is more" your merger idea is sensible; a rather complicated process was created and perhaps we should simplify it now. However, I do think we should continue to encourage reviews for pages that the nominator doesn't necessarily want FARCed. Perhaps we just need a sentence stating this. Also I don't know if the movement/closure instructions should be on the main page. This is all being done by committee, but at the same time I'm not sure if it's advisable to encourage anybody who wants to to just come along and make procedural decisions. Marskell 11:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence to your suggested. There might be a bit of redundancy between the two, but it's a point worth emphasizing IMO. Marskell 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Night of the Living Dead

Thanks for you input on the Night of the Living Dead FAC. I addressed the examples you listed at FAC and I and another editor scoured the rest of the text searching for and removing redundancies and poor prose. Could you let me know if there is anything else that needs to be addressed? Thanks again. Dmoon1 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrannosaurus

Although I can't be 100% sure, I feel I have addressed many of your concerns for the article. Please see my comments there... Spawn Man 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)

Thank you for your comment. Large scale modifications have taken place since you made it. For more details, please refer to the link above, and to the article itself. :NikoSilver: 12:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Lead corrected according to your proposal. More prose added in all sections. Full reference of all facts in the article. De-listed where applicable. 2 users have already re-evaluated their opposition and now enthousiastically support. Kindly re-examine...:NikoSilver: 13:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your last objection was dealt with. Please proceed.:NikoSilver: 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tony. I need your help in copy-editing the article. Sandy has already made a first pass, so it wouldn't be to hard. Care to give it a look? All Macedonians desperately need a distinguished article that will work as a point of reference for all related articles. Please help, as none of the primary contributors appears to be as skillful as you in handling the language. Thanks. :NikoSilver: 10:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. We've had no news from you since your last opposition. The article has significantly improved further. Please re-evaluate. :NikoSilver: 01:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrannosaurus

New responses & task completion comments on the above page. I look forward to your response & hope it is enough to gain your support... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC). . P.S. I hope this isn't because of the Ghandi comment? ;)

IG Farben

Tony, this article has now ironed out the referencing problems, if you want to have a look at the prose. [4]. Sandy 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya is also better referenced now. [5] Sandy 00:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL !!! I've learned a lot the last few weeks. I gave abundant praise, and then made a minor comment about the best article I've seen since I've been reviewing, and the author seemed to get upset <shrug>.

Libya was promoted FA, but needs a good massage. I'm really happy to see you got through IG Farben, because now I'll switch to support. (I had removed my objection based on references, but wasn't able to take on the copy edit myself.) Take care, Sandy 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - you forgot to sign IG Farben Sandy 02:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Belated welcome back

After the mess with your RfA, and the e-mail in which you said that your doctor was concerned about your stress level, I had supposed that you wouldn't be returning.

I'm glad to see that I was wrong; you definitely make the FA process a better thing. DS 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

No problem. I found your comments about reading text aloud in User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a #Attaining and applying "strategic distance" about reading text aloud interesting, as I'm forced to use a speech synthesizer for all my reading and writing. It parses a sentence according to rules about where clauses end and the placement of commas. Because of this, I find the speech synthesizer handy for checking for misplaced commas. I also find that if a phrase doesn't sound good on a speech synthesizer, it's usually because it doesn't obey its rules of sentence structure; the sentence usually needs to be reworded so that the speech synthesizer puts stress on the correct word. Dectalk software is very consistent in its application of letter-to-sound rules, and is quite easy to understand. I can't find the URL for the latest version at the moment. Dectalk is now owned by Fonix Corporation, and they don't seem to have a demo of the latest version for download. Graham talk 06:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your FAC review of battery electric vehicle

I know you mean well, but the Battery electric vehicle article has been completely copyedited over the past month by people other than the original text's authors: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Reading your comment which assumed nobody had done that was a little hard to take. The article has come a very long way in less than a month, I'm sure you will agree. There is always room for improvement.

At least one person said that some parts of your critique in your FAC review were not actually pointing out problems. When they were all fixed or addressed, someone else referred to your comment about the problem density throughout. This puts those of us who can't see any more problems in a difficult situation.

Could you please take another look and let the FAC review know whether you still feel the same way about the problem density? AnAccount2 07:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I feel much better now. I'm going to put the thing through peer review again, asking in particular for reports of unclear prose, when my fellow editors and I have done all we can with the FAC reviews which are still coming in.

You do a great job with your (overly? :) careful editor's eye and the guides you write to help FAC hopefuls copyedit. AnAccount2 16:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarajevo

I am making an attempt to save Sarajevo from being farc'd. I have begun to insert inline citations and condense the text. Could you review, comment, and copyedit (please!) the following sections Sarajevo#Geography and climate, Sarajevo#Demographics, and Sarajevo#Tourism? Am I fighting a lost battle, or can it be saved in time? I'll continue work on other sections in the meantime. Thanks. --Maintain 10:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• What about asking Rebecca: please see her comment on the FARC page. Tony 02:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I left Rebecca a message. I tried you since the copy-edit requirement was the basis of your comment and vote. --Maintain 05:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger FAC comment

I fixed everything you mentioned, and I even did some more fixing up. Crazyswordsman 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'd just like to mention that those of us from the Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VIII FACs have now helped out with this page and have copyedited the entire thing (as well as added new info, cut other info and added new pictures). If you could give it another look and let us know if we've met all concerns, we'd appreciate it. Ryu Kaze 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I, Wim van Dorst, give you this Scouting barnstar for your excellent input to get Baden-Powell House to Featured Article

WikiProjects

No response whatsoever on any front. I just notify whichever WikiProjects I can find in "what links here". I suppose I'll continue to notify for a few more weeks, and then give up, if nothing happens? Whatever you think. Sandy

Libya

Hello,

I was thrilled to recently find that my self-nominated, mostly self-arranged, Libya article had reached FA in its first attempt. Over the days it was a candidate, many objections were raised and mostly resolved. The most significant objection was regarding Crit. 2a.

During candidature, I read your "How to satisfy Criterion 2a guide", and tried to copyedit what I could. Having worked on the article for almost a year however, it was very hard for me to achieve strategic distance. I approached members of the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team to help me, who were mostly very helpful and copyedited different sections.

I feel that its FA promotion was somewhat of a surprise (a pleasant surprise mind you), but it happened at a time before a thorough copyedit had been done. Some sections have different styles and cohesion is a little weak at the moment.

I really feel that one final thorough copyedit by one editor is what the article needs. Your expertise and finesse would be much obliged by all members of the Africa-related regional notice board who worked on the article with me, and a good copyedit would no-doubt deem the article worthy of its FA; all other objections have mostly been resolved. As you can imagine we all want to avoid this dreaded page!

Could you please, if you have the time, give the article a quick final copyedit? I'm sure it won't take long as many parts have already been done. I know you're a busy man, but I would be extremely grateful if you could find time for this particular request and put the 'Tony Touch' on the page!

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 15:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, you've depressed me! I really thought it was FA standard (9 supports & 3 objects (75%)). That's why I came to the best though, I knew your eyes would see what I didn't. As for other editors, User:Walkerma, User:Badbilltucker & User:Mingus ah um had all shown great interest in copyediting this article when it was FAC and are all very good editors. As for me, I'm afraid I'm off for a wiki-break and my input will be hampered. Please keep me updated though and I hope the page is repairable. Thanks again,

--Jaw101ie 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Six FARs today

I notice you added four reviews today and then we got two more. Overloading it? I worry that if we have too many at once they might not get enough individual attention. Marskell 18:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

You were kind enough to comment on the previous FAC for the Bricker Amendment. I have now proposed it as a featured article after extensive revisions and would appreciate your vote here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Consecutive fifths

I took a stab at copyediting the Consecutive fifths article. I'd be interested in your opinion on what I did. Peirigill 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello:request

Hi! May I request you to have a look on the peer review of Satyajit Ray? I know you are often requested to see articles to improve the prose and style. If you can manage some time, then please have a look at this article, too. I've also requested SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) for the same.

This article is on a film director. The problem we are anticipating is regarding its length and style. The article is styled on his works, rather than events in his life. So it may be somewhat different - we are not sure. Shmitra (talk · contribs) is the main contributor who has worked really hard to improve the article. Could you please have a look? Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

TPM

I did a runthrough. I think it's improved, but it may need a final runthrough to make sure — especially since I added a couple of story arcs and removed some speculation. — Deckiller 05:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deckiller has finished his copyedit and given support to the article. I hope you can do so now as well. :) The Filmaker 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, TPM is the fanboy abbreviation for Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. :) The Filmaker 14:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Told ya it would need another runthrough by another person :) — Deckiller 15:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • I am unsure what you mean by this inline query under the novelization section "Check my "these events", referring only to one of the previous items." could you clarify? The Filmaker 04:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've run through of your inline queries and fixed them all. Hope you can support now. The Filmaker 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spellchecking

The bit on my userpage was just the first version of the above; I've replaced that fragment with a link to the project. Thanks for reminding me to do that. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

TPM synopsis section

Bleh, I didn't even notice those few issues when I copyedited :(. Shows I still have plenty of room for improvement in my young age. — Deckiller 03:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply

PS Why on earth are you going for the mop? As a general rule, those without it are the ones who contribute the intellectual content. Tony 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment — ;-P I disagree; I still edit articles almost as much as I used to. I only spend an average of 20-30 minutes on admin duties. — Deckiller 07:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I like to think that perhaps I'm not part of the general rule :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Fodor

If and when you have the time, could you take a look at the revised version of the article. I have addressed your first three or four "specific" criticisms, but I would like some clearer idea on specific areas where you think there is still "flab" or "fluffiness". I have tried to address this too, but it is very hard to tell what someone else has in mind with regard to "flab" without more specifics. Thanks.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony

I think that the page you have setup is unbelievably helpful! However, I'm a bit of a lost cause, unfortunately. At imes I tend to use two or three words where one word will do! It has made me think about what I'm writing more carefully though. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X

Would you agree on closing the Final Fantasy X review? It seems that major concerns have been addressed and there is no need for FARC. Joelito (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment and encouragement. I enjoy copyediting articles, although I don't think I've reached your level of precision! I'll see if I can help out with more of the FAC and FARC's. Best wishes, -- MarkBuckles 21:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

StarCraft

No real harm. I'm just concerned about the backlog and thought we could move stuff off the review list if there was consensus already. Sorry, my time has been very limited the last two days. I'll try and look at things more closely soon. Marskell 21:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Request

Hi Tony,

I have done what you asked for -- see the edit history of the page. But again, the page looks horrible in 800x600 screen resolution. That needs to be fixed. You also asked about colors. For that please have a look at Web colors. There are many available, but try to use the web-safe colors. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You may also try Wikipedia:Colours to have a more Wikipedia-like look and feel. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony,

The text looks perfect, and the suggestion idea is also good. Good work. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: FAR/FARC

(I can never tell whether to leave replies on people's talk pages, or on my own. Personally, I prefer to keep discussions on the same page, but that's just me - I appear to be in a minority around here on that score. Anyhoo.)

Thanks for your suggestion, and for the thought that my input might be useful. I'll certainly have a thorough read of the page, and the way it all works, and give some thought to plunging into the backlog! It's always good to find ways to be useful on the wider 'pedia, and personally I prefer the processes that involve some thought and consideration rather than the tedious (but vital) chores! Seb Patrick 20:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

Tony, have you checked Medal of Honor lately? A lof of editors have been at work on it, they've gotten it referenced, and the prose seems improved (subject to a double check by you). Sandy 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don Dunstan

Just wondering if you might be able to have a quick look at this article and tell me how developed it is in regard to its readability and prose. Any comments are best left on its peer review. Thanks! michael ^talk 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahmedabad

Hello Tony. I have been asked to seek out your help for help on Ahmedabad. The article is in FAC (nominated by me) and there are some problems with the article, mainly with the criteria "prose is compelling, even brilliant". Could you please review the article and copyedit it as much as you can. If you don't have time, could you leave a quick review on my talk page. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot! - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article. I will always treasure your "it's EXCELLENT" edit summary. Yours was the review that I had most dreaded ever since I submitted this article. I will try my best to see that Spangineer too can support the article by the end of this FAC. Thanks for this too. It is better than most grammar books we had at school. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sir" in articles

Hi Tony,

I have a style question and I figure you're pretty much the authority. I'm wondering about including "Sir" to denote the knighthood of someone mentioned in the body of the article or in a list.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) mentions that "Sir" should not be used in the title of the article, but doesn't address this point, as far as I can see.

My inclination is that the use of "Sir" in this context is analogous to using "Mr." It's unnecessary information - but I'm not sure if there is a WP policy or consensus. Thanks for your help. MarkBuckles 14:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Mr is a title one gets automatically for being a man, and Sir is a title that is either acquired (a) through being knighted or (b) through inheriting a baronetcy, I think Sir should be in an article's title. Any thoughts?Mowens35 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks

An idea popped into my head—have you considered adapting User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a for Wikibooks? Right now there's a pretty solid college rhetoric/composition textbook over there (wikibooks:Rhetoric and Composition), but it doesn't go into the same level of detail, and doesn't have many examples. It could be supplemented with your material, or alternatively you could create a new book and call it "Advanced Editing" or "Brilliant Prose" or the like. Wikibooks at the moment is still very much in development (I don't see too many professors choosing Wikibook textbooks over print textbooks), but in the future, who knows? Yours is the most detailed instruction on the intricacies of excellent writing that I've ever seen, and I suspect that many high school and college writing instructors would be glad to use it. Obviously you're a busy guy with all this FAC/FAR stuff (not to mention real life), but I think it's worth considering. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In other words... a lot like most college composition textbooks. In their support, they should be treated as supplements to the professor, which hopefully involves explanations and copious use of red ink. I've never had an English class where the text devoted significant amounts of space to teaching the mechanics of good writing. It was always the teacher's lectures and explanations, in conjunction with appropriate exercises, that made a difference for me. Your material doesn't rely on the skill of an instructor, which for many purposes is a good thing. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

You recently mad a change to the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) page where you changed the phrase "unit symbol" to "unit symbol abbreviation". The text in question was using SI units. I wonder if you are aware that the short form of SI units are called symbols and not abbreviations? --Gerry Ashton 03:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stable versions

Have you checked out that stability proposal? I think it's excellent, and key to maintaining FAs. — Deckiller 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's just for FAs (as a way to ensure that the prose isn't degraded?). It could always be lifted for FAR. — Deckiller 06:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought....it's not worth the trouble right now o.O. I'm thinking from the perspective of a "defensive FA writer", which is not a wise thing to do. — Deckiller 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Darjeeling FAC

Thanks a lot for your comments in Darjeeling FAC. In fact, we were waiting for you! I requested Sandy to have a look also. Anyway, as we are seeing during last 3 or 4 months, India-related articles are lacking good copyeditors. Maybe the reason is we use more a functional English rather than grammatically correct and compact English. Also Nichalp (talk · contribs) is less available nowadays. We'll change the lead ASAP. It would be great if you can manage some time to go through as many sections of the article as possible. We'll definitely miss things that only you can locate. Will wait:)--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Grammatically correct is functional, but is the reverse true? :) I mean we can communicate even without being correct and compact. However, we cannot make good articles in that way :( We'll be contacting some copyeditors. Still, just in case you manage some time, please have a look again. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

ref

"Lockwood, W.B. A Panorama of Indo-European Languages. Hutchinson University Library, 1972. ISBN 0091110203 cased, ISBN 0091110201 paper."

pp. 79-80 "Only the Celtic developed in the British Isles is fully known but it may be reasonably supposed that at least some of its peculiar features were first acquired in these islands as a result of the fusion of the immigrant Celts with the pre-Celtic population. One such striking feature is the use of periphrastic tenses consisting of the verb to be and a verbal noun, eg Welsh yr wyf yn dyfod, lit. I am a-coming. What makes this particularly interesting is the fact that English, in its turn, has copied this strange construction, but has given it a special semantic content not found in Welsh. Side by side with the inherited Germanic verbal form I come, we have the exotic construction I am (a-)coming, which sets the pattern for our very un-Germanic continuous tenses."

p. 108 "Old English was but little affected by Celtic, though the beginnings of the English continuous tenses, which were inspired by Celtic, go back to this period." --VKokielov 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dawson Creek, British Columbia, FAR

Dawson Creek, British Columbia is about due to move to FARC. JKelly, Maintain, and I have poked around in there a bit, but no one else has done anything. It appears to be decently referenced: is the prose close enough that we can try to salvage it ourselves, or is it too far gone? Sandy 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian chant query

"I'm afraid that I used the opening sentence from an early draft of that article in an exercise on how to split up sentences. <blush>"

I had seen that. ;-) Not to worry. When I set out to revamp the article, I tried to keep as much of the original writing as I could.

"Someone has raised an issue with this phrase: 'Gregorian chant developed mainly in western and central Europe during the ninth and tenth centuries.' Where else is Christendom but in western and central Europe? was the question. I responded that I think it means "not in Italy", and thus the reference is not redundant. Is that correct?"

Not in Italy, nor Spain, nor Ireland, nor the Byzantine Empire, nor Armenia, nor Ethiopia... there was lots more to "Christendom" than the French and German lands. Peirigill 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "in the Frankish lands"? That's broad enough to include the main centers in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Bohemia, while excluding Italy. Let me know if that solves the problem. Peirigill 07:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments

I've followed your suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adi Shankara and reworded the Adi Shankara article. Do check it out. If you have any more comments do give them. Also, what are 2a and 3a?--^Babub→Talk 14:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I will explain 2a and 3a to him. You have many FACs to review :). - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adi Shankara, I've done a major copy-edit of the intro and the article. Do check it out. I've messaged the editors but noone responded! --^Babub→Talk 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact Samir (the scope) helped and gave a support. --^Babub→Talk 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've once again edited the lead thoroughly and altered the other sections. Do take another look at it. I cannot say that this is wikipedia's best work currently (I don't know whether any other article can do that either :) but I feel its good enough. ^Babub→Talk 15:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Eritrea FA critique

Hello Tony, I was the one who nominated the Eritrea page for FA status. Thank you very much for reviewing it and all your inputs. First I would like to ask who you would recommend I get in contact with working on the Libya article to see if I could get some help with the Eritrea article. I have been looking for people to help me with it but, to no avail.

Secondly, you pointed out in your critique:

"there are nine nationalities"—but only one nation; the term raises questions, so why not use "ethnic groups"?

The reason for this being the way it is is because they are not solely ethnic groups. Some of the ethnic groups are similar, especially with nearby ones but have a different history, and so the term nationality is used instead of ethnic group. The country itself includes nine of these nationalities. I hope this clarifies that point.

Thank you again for all your help. --Merhawie 21:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Tony! It has not been explained further in the text but I will see what we can do about that. Thanks again! --Merhawie 16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:REVIEW

Hi Tony, thanks for sorting out my copy edit to the Putnam intro. You definitely made it clearer than I had managed to.

The reason for this note is that I've set up a page at WP:REVIEW, which I hope we can write up to give advice to FAC reviewers about which issues are grounds for objections and which aren't, and so on. If both reviewers and candidates can see what's required, we should end up with more consistency, and therefore fewer disappointments, and hopefully less work for reviewers because candidates will come more prepared. I hope you'll help to write the page as you're one of the experienced reviewers, and know best what people should be looking out for. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the page is for reviewers to ensure that objections and comments are actionable, and more or less consistent across nominations. The page isn't intended to replace the FA criteria page, but to complement it. It should help nominees to see exactly what the reviewers will be looking for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You corrected my title? Thank you; the misplaced hyphen has gone. Regarding FAR/C, I don't know anything about it, but I'll take a look. However, this page is intended, as things stand anyway, specifically to provide guidance to people who support, object to, or comment on featured article candidates, which is what I mean by "reviewers." My preference would be to keep it narrow, so if I should choose another word for them so as not to confuse it with FAR, please let me know. And please feel free to participate as you see fit. I would very much value your input. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to inform myself about the FARC process. What I'm hoping is that we can draw up a list of examples of valid objections and invalid ones (non-actionable ones), but I want to make sure we don't do it at the expense of high standards. The aim should be to achieve a degree of consistency. Just to pull an example of the air, I noticed that one FA is up for demotion because it uses Harvard referencing (I just glanced, so there may be other problems). I also prefer footnotes now that we have the new system; nevertheless it's apparently the case that academics and other professional writers are moving away from footnotes and back to Harvard referencing, so WP seems to be going against the grain. Also, Harvard referencing is acceptable under WP:CITE, which is the relevant guideline. This is one example of where I think a discussion needs to be had about the relationship between content guidelines and the FA process. Ideally, the latter should follow the former, but should it do so rigidly? The guidelines are not always stable, but the FA process needs to be, so they may sometimes not be consistent. The whole thing is quite tricky, really. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my hope is that, although the page is for reviewers, nominators will be able to check the list of criteria (as explicit a list as we can reasonably come up with, bearing in mind that judging quality is not algorithmic) and see there's no point in submitting a nom unless it has A, B, and C. I agree that it's a common pursuit. Nominators are likely to become reviewers; reviewers are perhaps likely to be frequent nominators. And the point of the whole thing is to increase quality and attract, or even create, good writers, which is in everyone's interests. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia space

i mean instead of User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a which is for personal essays etc it could go to Wikipedia:How to satisfy Criterion 2a or even Wikipedia:Manual of Style (How to satisfy Criterion 2a). Zzzzz 12:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude

I would not describe your attitude as "brash", rather incredibly pompous and confrontational. Perhaps wrongly I did not believe FAC requirements applied to nomination text! Mark83 12:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your commments. Mark83 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tobbaco Smoking

Please copy-edit the page and get your group to copy edit our page Tobacco Smoking. --GoOdCoNtEnT 18:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

References should come first. Sandy 19:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to work

Hi,

Now that everything is "back" to normal, we can concentrate on building an encyclopedia. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I have skimmed through the debate. I am not very free for the next few days (till Thursday), so wouldn't be able to go throught whatever happened in there. Anyways, I had thought that it was possible to keep working as an editor along with be an admin. However, if I were to choose between them, I would, without doubt, choose to be an editor. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fluff

I'm glad you don't fluff up your opposes — "You're a good writer, but" is more insulting than "the prose needs work". — Deckiller 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Phishing FARC

That'd be good. I just haven't been and wont be able to contribute much to it, being that i spent all weekend moving my belongings to a new state. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the extension request. I'll try to show up when i can. Final move date is friday, and i don't have internet in the new place yet. I'll do what i can. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In-fighting

I saw you had tried to disengage which is why I suggested SlimVirgin should avoid reigniting the argument. It's a pity that this has kicked off in the wake of the "HP incident", as I think everybody has an interest in making the process flow better, and the constant digging over of the on FAC review isn't helping (and it seems you are bearing the brunt of the criticism from the nominators in that case, which can't be easy). Cheers, Yomangani 10:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for The Wire (TV series)

You seem to be very good with prose suggestions for Featured Articles. If you have the time, I'd like for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Wire (TV series)/archive1 and offer whatever suggestions you can. We haven't gotten any yet in the week since the Peer Review went up, but I would appreciate you applying your expertise before I nominate it at FAC. I already have one FA under my belt (Krazy Kat) but this new one looks like it will have a harder time passing. Andrew Levine 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and helpful suggestions in this peer review. I've tried to act on some of them immediately and added some further discussion about others.--Opark 77 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Offence

Absolutely not; it was a comment to one of the "debates" on the FAC talkpage. — Deckiller 17:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

references

Yeah, I happened to saw the request on User:Petaholmes' talk page. The problem was that the refs went at some point from ascii quotes to angled ones, which won't work in XML tags. Circeus 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I figured someone must have fixed it. :) --Peta 02:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

BAE Systems

I've removed several lists, would you mind taking a look to see what you think? The remaining lists ("organisation" and "joint ventures") convey information that is not easily converted into prose. Thanks, Mark83 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, you have given some useful suggestions. Why have I spent so much time on the article? It is one of the UK's largest companies and the defence industry in general interests me. I know you said it isn't interesting (I don't mind constructive criticism), but can I ask; do you find the whole subject uninteresting (i.e. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman articles), or is it something about this article in particular? To answer your question, no I don't work for the company. I live in Northern Ireland, where BAE does conduct any business, so there is no personal interest.

Regarding "reading like a company document" – Perhaps it's the quote (In recent years BAE Systems has undergone a radical transformation from a UK-based aircraft manufacturer to a broadly-based systems business. Through this transformation the company has achieved a more balanced portfolio and geographic spread.) I chose that simply to highlight the fact that the company is very different from the one created in 1999. Perhaps too complimentary?

Very good points about criticism section/socio-economic impact/position in the British military–industrial complex. That will all take some time, but I'll try my best. Images would be very good, however my location prevents me from contributing any. I have no idea about land mines, I'll try to find out. Thanks again for your time. Mark83 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tahirih Justice Center FAC

Hello Tony, I have recently nominated the article Tahirih Justice Center for FA and was referred to you by one of the reviewers (Petaholmes) for a copyedit. If it's not too much of a bother, could you give the article a quick glance, with specific focus on neutralizing certain passages so that they are more NPOV? Thank you so much!UberCryxic 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh putting that paragraph back is fine. I'm liking your edits so far. Thank you very much!UberCryxic 03:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Disseration

Wow! Is it posted online? — Deckiller 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nichalp

is on a vacation. Won't be back before this weekend. Tintin (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus FAC

Hi, Tony. Thanks for your input on the FAC, but I don't think all of your message went through. It looks like part of it was cut off mid-sentence, and I'm unsure how much of your advice might not have gotten through. There's only one edit in the edit history from you, so I can't check to see what else you might have been trying to say. Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Darjeeling

Hi - Please check these changes. I've fixed the problems I saw and found across the article. I don't think there are other problems, but please let us know if there is anything else. Thanks Rama's arrow 16:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Economy of India FAR

Hi Tony, Thanks for your efforts. It has really restored some sanity to the article, which had lost its balance after most of the regulars stopped watching it. Please give 2 weeks before you move to FAR and I will work within that period to fix all the issues that crop up. --Pamri • Talk 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Criterion 2a guide

Perhaps it is outside the scope of the guide, but if you run out of ideas on tips to offer, it would be useful to have something about techniques for using sources in articles - rewriting references to satisfy 2a without changing their meanings. For example, suppose I had a single source for an article on a frog which said (extreme example): "Some very young frogs may very rarely be seen hopping on a wide variety of plants". Horrible writing but if I drop it from my article then I lose information on the behaviour of the frog. If I simply replace the vague terms I change the meaning: "very young" is some age younger than just "juvenile", but it is impossible to say how much younger. Even "hopping on" presents difficulties. Does it mean "hopping up onto" or "hopping on the surface of". Is quoting the source a solution? Not always, as it can be just as disrupting to the flow and is impractical with large amounts of text. Maybe you have some better solutions. Great work on the guide and exercises, by the way. Cheers, Yomangani 01:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That was too easy. I obviously should have come up with something more extreme, or waited until I had a real example that I needed rewriting.

BTW, if you get a chance could you revist the oceanic whitetip FAC - if I can get everybody to "Neutral", I'll count it as a pyrrhic victory. Yomangani 01:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

FU from Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article?#Personal_guidelines_on_FA_writing

Further follow up didn't seem germane to the criteria talk page, so I'm copying your comments and leaving a response:

Since you've entered the fray, and in a partisan way that is frankly quite unnecessary and does you no credit, allow me to have my say about your guidline (sic). When I first perused it in February and edited the first few sentences, my view was that it was in an amateurish state—both the language on the clause level and organisation on a larger level. I did wonder whether someone who writes "The second criteria is probably the big one" and "a lot of nominations are far from meeting the criteria" should be advising anyone on how to prepare an FA. It is in a better state now that it has been substantially rewritten, thanks to the efforts of a number of people. However, there are still numerous problems with the prose—and beyond that, with what you are intending to mean—including a couple of matters that I've gone as far as raising on the talk page. (I may be wrong on these counts, but I think these and other problems need to be worked through.)

Therefore, I find it strange that you should be asserting in a non-specific and one-sided way that "a number of people disagree with [the] recommendations in my article on Criterion 2a" (what, all of its recommendations?) without the slightest mention of the fact that a lot of people find it very useful, as evidenced in a number of places on WP.

To put the shoe on the other foot, I wonder whether the move of your piece to WP space would have gained consensus if it had been put through a proper, formal process such as FACs must undergo. And this "consensus accross (sic) a wide number ("sic") of editors over a significant time" that you claim to have encapsulated is not verifiable. I, for one, would have said "no" until substantial improvements were made, and I suspect that other voices would have been raised in objection. I still think it needs work.

I would not normally take an adversarial line with someone with whom I've previously had satisfactory relations. It would have been wise for you to have done the same. Tony 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference is you've made this personal. Nothing I said was directed to you, instead I simply pointed out that people have stated they disagree with your guidelines, which is a fact. You seem to have taken it personally and now begun denigrating my efforts. I do apologize if I offended you. I did not state that your guideline was useful because I took that as a given. I can see why that may not have felt like the compliment that nonetheless was implied with it. Yes, there were issues with the writing style in the guideline I started and there may still be, but there has been no substantial objection to the core content, beyond one you have stated that is being discussed. If you do have more, as stated earlier please bring them up on the talk page so they can be ironed out. I made no effort to polish it initially, instead believing it important to lay out the main ideas in a rough draft as a show of belief in the wiki improvement process. And yes, if it were needed I could verify the guidelines represent the consensus of a significant number of the core participants in the FAC process over the years. In any case lets get back to improving the guidelines and the project. If you think this needs further follow up it should probably be on one of our own talk pages. - Taxman ^Talk 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

BAE

Thanks. However I got a lot of interesting and constructive comments (including from yourself). So plenty to work on! Best regards, Mark83 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Economy of India

I'll do my bit in addressing the issues. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC

I don't even know where to start on this one. The footnotes are done wrong, it's very listy, I can tell the prose is tortured, but don't know how to explain why. I don't even know how to begin to help the nominator fix this article. Sandy 23:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Mac project collaboration

The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Apple II

Nope, none of it is my writing...except the "Apple II Europlus" section (which is still under construction). Don't be too surprised, most of the article is badly written actually . — Wackymacs 15:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FairTax

Tony, I've made large copyedits to the article since your review. Thank you for pointing out some of the poor writing. I've done my best to correct the article, however, I don't believe I am able to meet your standards of quality. I've read your writing page and only got about half the exercises correct. I replied to your comments on the FAC page. In one area, you got the impression that a 30% rate was revenue neutral but the other rate was not. I'm interested in how this was confusing and how it could be written better so others are not confused. If you know of any good editors that would take on this article, please let me know. Perhaps you may be interested in assisting. :-) Thanks again for your review and I hope to improve this article soon and gain your support. Morphh 15:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Indian Standard Time

Hi Tony. Could you check and see if the prose requirement for Indian Standard Time are up to FA standards? I've written it in a bit of a hurry. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit and comments! Added some unfulfilled on the article talk page. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Article names (FA relation)

To be honest, I'm not sure. Deckiller would know better than I. His administration powers probably extend to that, but I've never asked him.

The easiest thing to do would probably be to just copy-paste the article's content to a new page that used "1a" in the title, with the previous "2a" page serving as a redirect. I'd certainly prefer the big one to be at the top as well. I just didn't want to make any problems for your article unnecessarily. Ryu Kaze 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• To answer your question, anyone can move pages. Moving pages automatically creates redirects. You guys should have all the tools to take care of this as it is, unless I'm not grasping the concept here? — Deckiller 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Best profession in the world.

I wouldn't worry about Google's bots, by the way. They're all over Wikipedia like white on rice. I'm sure they'll update soon, and the Google link should redirect to the new page anyway (I think). Ryu Kaze 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally random, I know, but I think it's great that you've been constructing that page. It's a great piece of work, and all of us could learn something from it (myself included). Your advice is ever useful in not just the FAC process, but in writing great articles period.

Given my background, I have a tendency (it's more than a habit, really; it's almost a need) to integrate wording that can be flowery. My initial inclination is not to describe a table, but to tell you about this table in such a way that you will think "My God, that's the most fantastic table ever". That's why I've been so lucky to have worked with Deckiller (who keeps your advice in his backpocket, figuratively speaking), as I always know he'll provide a quality copyedit. Then, when I get to FAC, I know your input will help iron out any remaining problems we might have missed.

Writing an encyclopedia is very different from literary analysis, so it's been tough for me at times. However, I think Wikipedia can be a great community for making someone into a better writer. As such, your article can also help. While writing an encyclopedia isn't at all like writing an analytical essay, I think I've taken things from my time here that will help me do a better job at that (and a better job at what I do; nearly time for the next school year to begin). If I'm starting to sound like I'm babbling, that's probably because I'm very sleepy now and need to go to bed. XD Take care of yourself, and, again, great job with your work and thanks for the constructive advice you've given me. I appreciate it and know I'll be able to make good use of it. Ryu Kaze 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to review a page?

Hi Tony1. I was looking through your input in a video game's recent FA drive, and I'm impressed with your knack for spotting verbosity and needless words. I, too, strive to be a minimalist (grammatically speaking), but we're not all perfect. I'd highly appreciate it if you could review my Door Door page once it's completed, both for prose and accessibility to the non-expert; as I type, I've got about 10% to go. Door Door is an old computer puzzle/platform game and the first game ever published by Dragon Quest developers Enix. It's pretty unique, and I'd say it embodies elements from Pac-Man, Donkey Kong (arcade game), Mario Bros., Sokoban, and Lemmings. Thanks! --Tristam 04:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I must apologize since completing this page took an abysmally long time; I really got caught up with work at uni. I finally completed it, although I'm not particularly happy with it. I ended up cutting out a lot of it after realizing it had makings of original research; my real problem was organizing information in the Gameplay section. I've never really written an article over this type of game, so it was a bit of a problem. If you're interested in helping me out, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --Tristam 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sun spotting

"Most FAs do have an image at the top, so it's in keeping with the WP editing experience." Not really; the editing page doesn't show the image. "But maybe you're right; it's distracting, is it?" It's an arresting image; the color alone draws your eyes. It's surprising because it's extraneous to the matter at hand, which is diagnosing and correcting flaws in prose, and extraneous information is anathema to the editing style you're coaching. Maybe it's just me; I admit openly that my question was rather dumb. :-) Peirigill 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dürer's Rhinoceros

Tony - I realise that there is much competition for your time, but I'd be very grateful if you could cast your eyes over the above. I will be on wikibreak shortly, but will be leaving its peer review open - I have already had some helpful comments, and would really appreciate your views. I would like to take it to FAC in a couple of weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

1a/2a

Hey, Tony. I was wondering if it would be alright with you if I went ahead and moved your 2a page to a new User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. I just remembered that the "move" function will allow you to move both the talk page and the edit history with it (I've only used it once before, so it slipped my mind). I bring it up now because someone mentioned to me that on our proposed changes page, it was still linking to the "2a" title even though it actually applies to 1a now. I masked the link to say "1a" instead, but I figured it might just be easier and avoid any confusion if I went ahead and moved it. So that's it. Just here to ask if you'd like me to go ahead with that. Thanks again for all your input on the proposed changes. Ryu Kaze 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. Should have it done in just a few minutes. Ryu Kaze 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, all of them are changed. Let me know if there's anything that didn't get carried over properly and I'll fix it. I also went through to fix all uses of "2a" in the articles and the redirect links. Ryu Kaze 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you're very welcome, man. Once again, nice of you to take one for the team with the name changes. By the way, the Google link redirects properly too. Ryu Kaze 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar A bit random, but I want to award you with a barnstar for your contributions in User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, which—ironically—I thought should be something like the "featured guide" if there was such thing. :D —Jared Hunt August 20, 2006, 16:14 (UTC)

Re:60%

The 60% bit simply reinforced what was already there, hence I removed it. I'm simply trying to clarify and put into context information regarding the electoral changes without going into unnecessary detail.

While not explicitly mentioned in the article, but thuroughly noted in a number of my sources, the reform that Hall instituted went beyond equality to favouring Labor (despite not meeting the principle of one vote, one value) as it wasted a significant proportion of the Liberal vote in ultra-safe rural seats. The obvious example of the reform's potency was the 1975 elections, where the Liberals recieved a majority of the vote, but did not gain office.

Thank you for the copyedit and the support vote. I'll review the article and see about making changes where suggested. michael ^talk 09:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:FAC

Hey, don't worry about it. I probably should have set up the poll myself, but didn't because I thought that consensus had already been established. While I think "silly" was an improper way of labeling the process (after all, it does make more sense to call the page something like "Featured article criteria"), I can understand the point about the ambiguity of WP:FAC. I do agree, though, that the comment could have been delivered with a little more civility. Sometimes he can make some inflammatory comments, but like you said, his job isn't one that most people would want to do. It comes with its headaches, I'm sure. You just have to put your opinion out there when you feel like somebody has overstepped or is overlooking something, no matter who they are. I've spoken my mind to even Jimbo Wales on one occasion when I felt like a situation was being handled improperly. It probably didn't help matters much, but it needed to be said.

Thanks for the congrats, by the way, and remember that you had a big hand in the criteria revisions. I think they're going to enhance the process significantly. Ryu Kaze 12:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand, I can see the point being made about ditching it, but on the other, I don't think it detracts anything from the page, confuses the reader, or otherwise tarnishes the message being given to the reader. At worst, the image is neutral. At best, it spices things up a little and makes the reader more attentive. Since that image can be used anywhere in Wikipedia, I'd just keep it. Ryu Kaze 20:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Tony. Just letting you know that User:JimmyBlackwing took your advice and got Deckiller, myself and another editor to copyedit the Megatokyo article. I thought it was an informative article, though I wasn't familiar with the subject material, so I made an effort. Have a look and let everyone know what you think when you get a chance. Thanks, bud. Ryu Kaze 01:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I think it had come along really well. Once your objection was struck, I think the only one left would have been Monocrat's. I think JimmyBlackwing plans to renominate it soon, though. I expect it to make it next time. Ryu Kaze 20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Megatokyo FAC

Due to a massive, three-person copyedit, the article may now pass criterion 1a. Your re-evaluation of the prose would be greatly appreciated. JimmyBlackwing 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind. The article has been failed. JimmyBlackwing 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jingles

I REALLY look forward to that section. Anyone who can make anything relating to the term 'jingle' read like professional work has my vote! — Deckiller 02:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Eritrea Article

Hello there Tony, you have give suggestions on how Eritrea can become a featured article. However, before you edited it, someone took out a part of the introduction that i put in, and so I wanted to know whether this part that I added to it was okay or unnesessary? thx

"The area which is now called Eritrea played an important role within the framework of the wider region which we now know as Ethiopia. The coastal area represented the external door and the window of much of the Ethiopian region. The area lay off the Red Sea coast, one of the major trade routes of ancient times. The coastal area was later likewise visited, shortly before the Christian era, by Ptolemaic naval expeditions, which came in quest of elephants, aptly termed the tanks of the ancient world. The coastal area, throughout its long history, was in fact closely involvedInsert non-formatted text here in the foreign trade of the hinterland. Much of the latter’s commerce passed through the Red Sea coast: exports consisted largely of gold, ivory, civet musk and slaves, and the imports of textiles and other manufactured goods. [1]"

Cluckbang 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang

Tony, what Cluckbang has done here is show you part of the argument. Furthermore if you look through the history of the Eritrea page Cluckbang had not added his part to the lead until about August 3rd. The following is the section That I recommend for the lead:

Eritrea is a country in northern East Africa. The name is derived from the Latin word for Red Sea, Mare Erythraeum. The country is bordered by Sudan in the west, Ethiopia in the south and Djibouti in the southeast. The east and northeast of the country have an extensive coastline with the Red Sea across which lie Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The Dahlak Archipelago and several of the Hanish Islands are part of Eritrea. Eritrea was consolidated into a colony by the Italian government on January 1, 1890. Eritrea gained its independence from Ethiopia after a thirty-year war which lasted from 1961 to 1991.

Eritrea is officially a parliamentary democracy consisting of six regions, but functions as a single-party state. Eritrea is a multilingual and multicultural country with two dominant religions and nine nationalities, each speaking a different language. The country has no official language, but it has three working languages: Tigrinya, Arabic, and English. A fourth language, Italian, is sometimes used commercially.

Now the following is what Cluckbang believes would be better:

Eritrea is a country in northern East Africa. The name is derived from the Latin word for Red Sea, Mare Erythraeum. The country is bordered by Sudan in the west, Ethiopia in the south and Djibouti in the southeast. The east and northeast of the country have an extensive coastline with the Red Sea across which lie Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The Dahlak Archipelago and several of the Hanish Islands are part of Eritrea. It has long been an intersection between the civilizations of North Africa, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa due to its nearness to the Red Sea. The area now called Eritrea has played an important role in the the region we now know as Ethiopia. As an enclave on the coast of the Red Sea coast, a major trade route since ancient times, Eritrea has long been a strategic location for much of the region, a hub for exports of gold, ivory, civet musk and slaves, and imports of textiles and other manufactured goods. The coastal area was visited shortly before the Christian era by Ptolemaic naval expeditions, which came in quest of elephants, known as "the tanks of the ancient world".

Eritrea was consolidated into a colony by the Italian government on January 1, 1890. Contemporary Eritrea gained its independence from Ethiopia after a thirty-year war which lasted from 1961 to 1991. Eritrea is officially a parliamentary democracy consisting of six regions, but functions as a single-party state. Eritrea is a multilingual and multicultural country with two dominant religions and nine nationalities, each speaking a different language. The country has no official language, but it has three working languages: Tigrinya, Arabic, and English. A fourth language, Italian, is sometimes used commercially.

Now I am of the opinion that his alteration (which I have italicized) does not belong in the lead section. If any part of it did it would only be the first sentence, but I believe the contribution is too specific historically speaking, its talks about the effect Eritrea on Ethiopia even before Eritrea existed as a country, and if anything only belongs in the history section of the page. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Merhawie 00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Musical terms

Tony, I do like the sample that you have provided of the proposed "new look" for the list. I suggest you just go ahead, with a Word global search-and-replace on the whole thing. I'll then step in, if you like, and sift through the entire list, finding special cases that need quotes restored, or other systematic interventions. All fairly uncontroversial, I think. (Thanks for the link for the Reith lectures. Useful.) – Noetica 12:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, I have been distracted by complex activity at Talk:Physics/wip, and Talk:Color. I have to be away from my computer now. I'll get onto the musical terms in the next couple of days. (And I have corrected my inadvertent Reid to Reith, above.) – Noetica 06:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

General Inquiry

Hi there Tony, i was wondering why the tigray people article hasn't been considered for the main page? Its well written and organized. Cluckbang 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang

New Featured Article Review box

Please assist! All are welcome to paste this ongoing info box into their own space ({{User:Tony1/FAR urgents}}Tony 04:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Borobudur	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Edward III of England	Review now
USS Wisconsin (BB-64)	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now

BEANS

As you didn't respond, I'm worried you are offended by my referring to WP:BEANS! I really didn't mean anything by it. Marskell 09:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rule-creep is bad and I don't think we need to write it down on a separate page or anything. I just want to establish consensus on the talk about what gets closed, when.

The other issue is whether admins should be closing. I'm the odd person out in this regard and I haven't raised the issue for fear of self-advertising. If I were a newcomer, though, I'd expect it to be an admin who is removing stars. I keep planning to do it and not doing it. Marskell 09:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what we've got is working fine, and we shouldn't raise a problem unless we have one (ain't broke, don't fix it). Let's say that you are doing a better job than most admins would do <grin>, and if you ever goof, or another non-admin closes something inappropriately, then an admin can fix it. Joelito keeps an eye on everything, and we don't have enough people as it is, so we don't want to lose "you" by raising this issue. The bigger problem is, what happens when one of us goes on vacation, since the most active are Tony, Tim, Joelito and me ? We need more reviewers. Sandy 20:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No: Thank you!

Tony,

I really enjoyed finding your writing improvement article today as I was browsing around. I don't think I've finished reading all of it; there were so many fun exercises and hyperlinks out of the article that I wandered around quite a bit without keeping track of where I was. Nonetheless, I feel that I've learned quite a bit just by reading it, and the exercises make it very engaging! As you saw, the article was so encouraging and well written that I even used the tips to make corrections in the article itself.

You asked me what I thought about the lists section and I'm glad you've asked. That happens to be the spot in the article where I got lost and stopped reading. I'm not nearly experienced enough to tell you in detail what made comprehension so difficult, but I can say that that section suddenly felt very "dense". On re-reading it I think it might be that the lead paragraphs contain long sentences with many interruptive clauses (stuff in parentheses). It may also be that, unlike the rest of the article, this section didn't appear to have the same "compare and contrast" style that made the concepts in the other sections so easy to quickly learn. (Uh oh, I split an infinitive =) ). But I stress, again, these are unprofessional opinions. I will try to read it again tomorrow.

Thanks for the encouragement. It is an honor to be honored (or as an American I can meet you half way and say it is an honour to be honored). I look forward to reading more tomorrow.

— Ke6jjj 10:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of your changes gave me that frustrating feeling of "Why didn't I see that?", although I did partially reverse your change to the lime, sugar and water bit.

Strategic distance!

— Ke6jjj 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC

To Tony for helping make our featured articles truly the best articles on Wikipedia. Your work is appreciated -- Samir धर्म 23:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For your contributions, including the newest urgent FARC box. Your copyediting work and FARC suggestions are exemplary. Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 23:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A favor?

(Ditto to that barnstar!). Tony, a favor please? User:Enano275 has put a lot of work into El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda. He has it up for peer review now (no responses at all in a week, except mine), and he's been helping out on FAC lately. Enano is a native Spanish speaker. The article is fairly well cited (I know he works hard on the article, and will find any missing cites), and covers most of the basics, but has ESL and translation issues throughout the prose. Because I know El Hatillo well, and because the article is well cited, I can clean up the prose for Enano, and help him fill in the weak spots. I worked on the last section as a sample for him, but it still has some rough spots. If you wouldn't mind ce'ing the (short) last section only, I could learn some of your tricks, and go from there to working on the rest of the article. It's Sites of interest. Cover your eyes to the rest of the article :-) If you have time for this one short section, I'd appreciate it, and can use it to learn what I've missed. Thanks, Sandy 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful: thanks so much ! Sandy 03:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Links for non-native speakers

Hi Tony, I noticed that section right when you added it. I've taken some quizzes from the second site including this before. I need to check out the other link yet. Also, I felt your guide very useful. Thanks. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 16:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that will be very useful. I'll take the liberty to bug you for any grammar-related guidance from now on. :) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dawson Creek, British Columbia

Any further comments on this one? It's been in FARC three-and-a-half weeks. Marskell 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, have you looked at Thou recently? It has two keep votes: it's hard for me to evaluate an article about a word. It seems right up your alley. Sandy 14:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In the same vein, have you looked at whether Vulgar Latin needs to go to FARC? Sandy 14:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hello Tony. I recently submitted this article to FAC, and a few users commented that it could use some help from a native speaker. I was waiting for your comments on the article, when it was promoted today. I would really appreciate it if you could check out the article during your free time, and help in fixing any prose deficiencies. Thanks! -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 08:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Help

I can't catch a break today. Someone GA'd my article, introducing errors in the text while he did it, and now someone else wants to FAC it. I can't do this right now. I think he'll withdraw it ... I'm not ready.[21] Sandy 01:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Vulgar Latin

Hi, this is FA Review, on the verge of going into FARC. We wonder whether you're able to help reference the text. Tony 08:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you. I'm not really sure that I can do much to help here; I didn't write the article and a great bukl of my knowledge on the subject comes from the article itself. I've never read a book on the subject, etc. All I really did was translate it into French. Best of luck! (And it does look like it needs a lot more referencing, I agree) --Zantastik talk 06:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

ARCHIVE THIS PAGE :-) Joelito (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)