Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:57, 4 August 2006

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (4 August 2005 to 14 October 2005):
• Archive 2 (15 October 2005 to 5 March 2006):
• Archive 3 (6 March to 15 June 2006):

NeXT

Hey there Tony, good to see you still around Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages possible; disagreements in how to do so shouldn't get in the way of our good faith towards each other. I know firsthand that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages -- 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 Misplaced Pages. 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

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 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 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 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 :-) 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)

Article assistance

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 Misplaced Pages: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 (háblame) 14:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornell Changes

Please see the changes to address your objections at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cornell University. Thank you. —mercuryboard 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 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 . 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) 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) 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) 11:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check out the article again, and perhaps alter your objection. Or not. ...._(Complain) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages-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 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 20:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC bias

Tony can you have a look at Misplaced Pages: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 13:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, its alright now, I just decided to remove that part because its not really needed Minun 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) 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 ?! . --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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Peer review and hope you'll offer comments at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Bricker Amendment. PedanticallySpeaking 16:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: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 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 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

Misplaced Pages: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 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 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)

Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages: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. . Sandy 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya is also better referenced now. 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Colours to have a more Misplaced Pages-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 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.

Misplaced Pages: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 (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 (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 Misplaced Pages: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?--→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)