Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tony1

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dohn joe (talk | contribs) at 17:30, 16 August 2012 (Hyphens!!!: agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:30, 16 August 2012 by Dohn joe (talk | contribs) (Hyphens!!!: agree)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The Signpost
24 December 2024


Real-life workload: 2.5

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


Skip to table of contents


  • Watchlisters: user page and talk page watchlisted by 346 editors (May 2012)
  • Estimated yearly hits on my userspace (by extrapolating from the new-look traffic stats page, adjusted upwards for the six days of counter outage, 25–31 December):
    • Total (yearly hits, est.): 51,608
    • User talk page: 15,127
    • User page: 9,103
    • User contribs: 6,334 (now that's spooky)
    • Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing: 4,760
    • How to improve your writing: 3,231
    • Advanced editing exercises: 2,670 (renovating now: damn, it needs cleaning up)
    • Beginners' guide to the manual of style: 2,344 (desperately needs updating)
    • The six other tutorial pages: each less than 2,000.


Another styletip ...


Article and section titles


Don't use A, An, or The as the first word: History of South Africa, not The history of South Africa, unless by convention The is an inseparable part of a name (The Beatles).


Read more ...


Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Manual of Style
Content
Formatting
Images
Layout
Lists
By topic area
Legal
Arts
Music
History
Regional
Religion
Science
Sports
Related guidelines
Search
Centralized discussion For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
This user is proud to be a financial member of Wikimedia Australia.

Useful links
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Sennecaster 227 0 0 100 17:20, 25 December 2024 0 days, 15 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by Talk to my owner:Online at 01:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

FACs and FARCs needing review
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Operation Matterhorn logistics Review it now


Featured article removal candidates
Boogeyman 2 Review now
Shoshone National Forest Review now
Northrop YF-23 Review now
Bart Simpson Review now
Emmy Noether Review now
Concerto delle donne Review now
Pre-automated archives (4 August 2005 – 25 June 2008)

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

Current listening obsession: BWV11, last movement: Wann soll es doch geschehen (JS Bach). Here's the Harnoncourt version, which is great in many ways, but the flutes needed separate miking—they're drowned out in the tutti passages.

Self-help writing tutorials:

edit

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Your scripted date edits in April

I imagine this was just an oversight, or being in a rush, since you've been editing more and longer than I have. Nevertheless, you may want to look just a tad more closely at the edits generated WP:MOSNUMscript, since scripts are never as smart as good editors (and you certainly seem like a good editor). Specifically, your scripted 12 April 2012 edit to Viggo Mortensen (diff) changed the title 3 Fools 4 April to 3 Fools April 4, which I have fixed. While consistency in dates is generally good, breaking links is generally bad; and even the former can be overdone, as "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." (Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essays). It may be worth reviewing WP:DATERET in the context of your extensive accessdate edits in the references of that article as well. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. The script should not touch links. I'll look into why this happened. Tony (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC) PS I have advice that only four articles contain this string, and it was thought on balance better not to include. Please report possible bugs (more serious ones) to Misplaced Pages:Date formattings/script/MOSNUM dates/bugs; and thanks again for fixing. Tony (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom of Finland

I just thought I'd drop you a note to let you know that I agree with you about the picture at the Tom of Finland page. Someone reverted you, but I have restored your edit. You might want to watchlist the page. Hebradaeum (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I will watchlist it, and thank you very much for the alert. I looked through every other-language WP article of this name, and none used such an upfront shot. It's a matter of balance; there's got to be some kind of boundary between porn and non-porn (and the artistic argument is hardly valid here, I think). Tony (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Could use an outside iBall

You are invited to join the discussion at ]. Thx. Dl2000 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

User:Giraffedata/comprised of

Because of my recent revisions to the article "Kerala", that article is now on my watchlist, and, because of this revision by User:Giraffedata, I found User:Giraffedata/comprised of, which may interest you and your page watchers. A record of that editor's contributions is at http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Giraffedata. The words "compose", "comprise", "consist", and "constitute" are discussed at compose / consist / comprise /constitute... - EnglishClub.
Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) and 14:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice

I have used your name in a reply on MOSDATE. If you ever use my name in any discussion, I fully expect you will inform me. What has happened to you, Tony? You have changed dramatically from your early years here. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have evolved, but in a socially responsible way, I hope. Tony (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
While I expect constant sniping and biting from long-term disruptive editors, I expected better from you. Is it no longer possible for you to have an opinion without denigrating anyone who doesn't share your opinion? Gimmetoo (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
<sigh> Please calm down and try to be more collegial. Tony (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sigh? The RfCs on the issue have been had. The problem is that certain editors have gone on for years now in defiance of these RfCs. That you characterize a multiple RfC- and MOSNUM-authorized format as a "pet format" suggests, even now, your refusal to follow consensus. Yet apparently, you consider pointing this out "not collegial". Would you consider it honest and upright to mention editors by name disparagingly on various fora without even the decency to inform the named editors? Gimmetoo (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Gimme, I'm too old for this badgering. You watchlist WT:MOSNUM, right? Given your record of aggressively haranguing editors who in good faith are trying to fix up the mess of ref dates, I was disinclined to jump through hoops and notify you separately on your talk page. It was a thread you were already participating in. Give me a break. Tony (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
WTMOSNUM is not what I'm referring to, Tony. Perhaps you should not be encouraging editors to edit contrary to the RfCs and the guideline, and to ignore requests to comply with the guidelines. Why do we bother having RfCs and guidelines, if asking people who don't comply with them is characterized as "haranguing"? Gimmetoo (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's try to reach out to each other. This is just too negative. Tony (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You've made some characterizations that most would normally interpret as negative. What do you have in mind to change that? Gimmetoo (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Not the response I was looking for. What I have in mind is to wait a while. I'm quite relaxed at the moment, and I don't like seeing you spin out like this. I'm sorry if I've been critical. Tony (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens!!!

As much as I admire your dedication to correct grammar on Misplaced Pages, I think your recent use of hyphens might just be a bit hasty. For example, I see you have moved the article "singular value decomposition" to "singular-value decomposition" twice recently. In all uses of the term I have seen (and I have seen a number of them recently because I have just learned and am using singular value decomposition), the hyphen is not present. Worse, you have moved the article "continuous knapsack problem" to "continuous-knapsack problem". I am also familiar with that, having presented it to my class last year. It is not the knapsack that is continuous, but the items going into the knapsack that are continuous (they can be broken into pieces in other words), so the hyphen is incorrect and confusing. Could you cool it with the hyphens for now? I see I have some things to fix now. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So it's not a continuous problem, I presume. It's a problem of the continuous knapsack, rather tangentially expressed. I've not decided on this one, and nor have I done a search of sources. I will do this. Tony (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the easiest, safest thing to do would be to use the term as it is most popularly used. It's okay if the grammar on Misplaced Pages is not exactly perfect. If you feel strongly enough about a hyphen that you're willing to move the page, please do the research or discuss it on the talk page first. You can't just quickly search-and-replace — you have to understand what the term actually means before you can decide whether a hyphen is appropriate. Thanks! -- Schapel (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone else has been so kind as to fix the two problems I mentioned. I had to go into one of those articles and remove the hyphens you added there, too. Could you be so kind as to review and undo the rest of your hyphen edits where you added a hyphen to a term that usually is not hyphenated? I and many others would greatly appreciate it! Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I would be that kind soul. I agree that Tony has gone a little hyphen-crazy lately, and have undone the SVD and knapsack moves, as most of them are completely unhyphenated in sources. The most-hyphenated one, "singular value decomposition", is done so less than 10% of the time. Tony - I've told you before that I think you do good work by and large. Schapel is right, though, that perhaps you should slow down and actually examine sources before plunging in with a move. On the other hand, if you get it right 85% of the time, it's still a net improvement to Misplaced Pages, and there'll be folks who can come by and clean up later. Hmm - interesting economics argument I hadn't considered earlier... Dohn joe (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)