Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) at 19:50, 2 February 2008 (→Robert Gilbert (chemist) semiprotect ...: fix header). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

REAL-LIFE WORKLOAD: 9

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Macau FAC

I can bet my life, definitely this time you will vote oppose to this article a bit later for sure; no exception, as you are quite nit-picking for non-Australian/British articles. But would you please kindly give me some concrete opinions for improving the article instead of vote? Coloane (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious accusation. I don't know where you got the idea that I favour articles from certain places. Nominators from the UK and Australia think I'm hard on them. Tony (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to second that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in but, in my experience, Tony has one set of standards which he applies equally to all articles he reviews. I have seen no hint of bias at all. --ROGER DAVIES  08:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, from what I have seen is, this person (I very carefully observe this person for more than 1 year) only gave very superficial reasons like incorrect use of tenses, vocabs, etc that could be fixed in few minutes. No matter how much correction have been done by nominators, he wouldn't re-consider his vote or objection for sure. When someone asked him how to improve their articles, he might simply said he is not obliged to do so or not be able to help to fix up (please refer to his conservation - Russia FAC that he just archived). Although you tried to defense him and deny everything, I am sorry but I do think his work is not coterminous with that of FAC here. Coloane (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think reviewers are not supposed to edit. Nominators are obliged to do whatever suggestions have been given. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers are not obliged to edit nominations, but can if they wish. "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections." Heavens, Coloane has certainly built up a head of resentment over the past 12 months. I'd never heard of her/him. Tony (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The original spirit to give comment is mainly to improve articles in general. Reviewers are not obliged to give their opinions as well or even come here to logon according to your way of ridiculous thinking. Well, something I didn't bring it up here is when the nominators bring back their articles to re-nominate, their improvement are sometimes contradicted to what they did. This is the most laugable thing but I just feel sick of it. That is why I don't support this way of nomination. Contructive criticism is a vague term and debatable. There is no strict guideline to scrutinize anyway. You can basically do whatever you want. Coloane (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So get the gigantic chip off your shoulder and stop the personal attacks. Tony (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, most people abuse these concepts: bad faith, personal attacks, etc. These are not excuses to protect yourself and conceal what you are doing. When I try to waste my time and write something here, of course I have my own reason. You should politely accept and make your own self-review but not deny it right away. Otherwise, you can't find out what's wrong going on and limit yourself to improve. Regards! Coloane (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't be self-reviewing. Yes, you're wasting your time here. Go away. Tony (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See your arrogant attitude and speech above? I am not completely wrong. Coloane (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, what you need to know about User:Coloane is that he/she will personally attack anyone they believe stands in the way of their precious Macau article being promoted to FA status. Revenge attacks are another favorite tactic of Coloane, so if you make any negative comments about the Macau article, expect Australia to be quickly nominated at WP:FAR. More details available at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Ongoing_harrassment.2C_vote_rigging_and_sockpuppetery_by_User:Coloane and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser#Coloane. An administrator needs to do something about this editor's ongoing problematic behavior. (Caniago (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Caniago, nobody paid attention to your false accusation on the notice board. Go back to improve your article Indonesia and make sure I won't take that to FAR. Coloane (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's one of your previous comments about Tony I managed to find: This system will surely eliminate "Tony", "Shiva" and other people who are similar with low quality in education (Australian education is bad and I don't respect this) and little work experience. I wonder what is your motive for being such a despicable individual with respect to the Macau article? Are you being employed by the Macau government or a commercial enterprise to try to get some cheap publicity by getting Macau on the front page of Misplaced Pages? (Caniago (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Excuse me Caniago, I really don't want to argue with you on Tony's talkpage so this is my last comment here. Yes, I personally don't like his work, but I think he is quite diligent and make a lot of contribution to Wiki. Again, this is my personal opinion, nothing related to personal attacks. Actually I didn't nominate Macau and I just want to help josuachan a bit. I am not interested in putting the article Australia on the page of FAR according to what you mentioned. It is entirely ridiculous. Unlike Indonesia, Macau is pretty famous and I don't think wiki can help a lot. Most tourists would like to click the info related to hotels with casinos and restaurants in which wiki can't provide. Regards!! Coloane (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all if the article on Australia is nominated at FAR/C. I posted a notice I'd do it myself, about nine months ago, but someone fixed it in the meantime. I'll approach the Macau nomination at FAC in an even-handed way, as usual. Tony (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominators should respond and take all the suggestions constructively. Anyway, if you do not see any good about it, ignore it. You can ask other to review. Tony isn't the only reviewer here. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gimme More

User:Chwech copyedited this article simultaneously when this was on GAN. I am planning to proceed to FAC. Any thoughts? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

James Milner

A Peer review is currently going on. I hope you can give feedback when you can find the time. Buc (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

I see you're busy but a query on WP:Citing sources reminded me of bugzilla:4582. I think you're involved in this front. Discussion is all over the place, and I'm looking for a synopsis. Could you point me to some conclusion on what syntax/code/markup has been decided, and who if anyone has written code to implement it? No hurry, yet. Gimmetrow 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your FAC comments

I have worked hard on the article since the FAC began about a little over a month ago for The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power. Editors including yourself brought up some good points which I have done my best to address - and the article reads much better for them. Care to reevaluate your initial Oppose comment at the FAC? Cirt (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind, it was promoted. Thanks for your comments, I implemented all your suggested changes. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Somerset FAC

Unfortunately there has been a problem with FAC (possibly due to transcluded pages/templates & overall page size). As a result several nominations, including Somerset, have had to be restarted and I have been informed that all previous commentary (both supporting and opposing), including yours is void. As a result would you be kind enough to review the page and place any comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Somerset. Thanks— Rod 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Captions

Tony, you commented at this FAC that the captions shouldn't have full stops. However, I think WP:MOS#Captions actually says that if a caption includes a sentence as well as a sentence fragment, then both the sentence and the sentence fragment should have a full stop. I think the article is in compliance but I wanted to check with you. (The nom's been restarted by the way; the new one is here.) Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear they're OK. I hate to nudge an opposer, but your oppose to that FAC got erased when it was restarted, so you should probably re-register it on the restarted FAC if you still see problems. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

James Milner

A Peer review is currently going on. I hope you can give feedback when you can find the time. Buc (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC Birmingham campaign

I appreciate the comments you made to Birmingham campaign. I'd like to report that I have addressed your concerns and invite you to view the changes I made. Please let me know what more I can do to improve the article to earn your support. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your constructive criticism and input in making Alpha Kappa Alpha a featured article.

Best,

Style template

There are so many discussions about these issues in so many places, I'm leaving this here to be sure you'll see it. I've edited the style template to separate the MoS subpages from the others; and to separate the other guidelines from pages that have no status (that are either not marked as guidelines or are just proposals). See here. Is that all right with you?

The reason I did it is that what is and isn't in the MoS, and what is and isn't a style issue, seems to be very confused. Would it make sense to gather up anything you regard as strictly an MoS style issue and make it an MoS subpage? And/or perhaps have an MoS template only for those subpages?

You now have a special MoS guideline tag for the top of MoS pages, BTW -- we just moved the style-guideline title to MoS-guideline instead. SlimVirgin 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you're busy in real life, so there's no rush for this. SlimVirgin 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means change it to style and formatting. I don't know why I added syntax. Nice talk page, by the way. :-) SlimVirgin 23:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa del Giocondo FAC

Tony, would you consider supporting Lisa del Giocondo (at FAC) now? You were right, it needed work! I made two edit passes to spiff up the article. They have a waiting list as I imagine you know but I also requested a LOCE review. Thanks again either way. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for at least not objecting formally and for your constructive comments. Maybe most important from my point of view was that I learned to do page numbers! A participant at LOCE kindly moved this article from FAC to FA for copyediting at some point. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC Everglades National Park

I know you're a busy guy, and I'm covering my bases here. I've copy edited this article, and so have a couple other editors. I would appreciate it if you would drop back back to re-read and comment. I appreciate the time you took to read the article and make suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Future of air transport in the UK FAC

Hi Tony

Thanks for your comments in this FAC. I've acted on what I can, and queried a few items. If you get a chance can you have another look at the FAC and let me know what you think? Cheers. --FactotEm (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace

Hi;

I don't want to start an edit war here, if you don't like some of the links, or you are just not a links person, feel free to revise them; as regards the quality of the copy, with respect, please try reading a comparison of the FULL text of the two versions before you revert. Most of the changes I made were small ones, to correct egregious errors, or bad grammar, or bad/clumsy form. I made no revisions to the substantive content of the text & did not consider it necessary to start an entry on the talk page seeking approval for such minor work. The article as a whole really isn't very good in present form, it's jumbled & run-on & repetitive. If you'd like to engage in further discussion on the matter, friendly I hope, I am available.  :) --Lx 121 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI. I have reverted the edits and requested they be discussed on the talk page of the article instead of talk pages of individual editors. Best, Risker (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FA review

Hi Tony, I just wanted to thank you for your thorough and very professional review of the Iran article, recently nominated for FA status. It was really very helpful. Thanks again! SSZ (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Robert Gilbert (chemist) semiprotect ...

Re your message: That's pretty sad. Whomever it is seems to be watching the page waiting for the protection to expire (the bot was just doing cleanup, it didn't actually unprotect it). So it's back to semi-protection, this time for longer. Maybe the person will forget by then? We'll see. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)