User talk:Tony1/Archive02

Cleveland FAC

Tony, thanks for the comments. I'll get around to editing the prose tomorrow, as it's way past my bedtime here on the US east coast, but in the meantime I've edited nbsp's into the article (exactly what purpose do they serve, though? Is it to keep the unit on the same line with the measurement?), and streamlined the footnotes to always come after a period.

Couple of concerns that I didn't get to, though: first, the figures for the MSA and CSA populations came directly from their respective pages on Wikipedia, and from there they trace back to the 2000 census. Are those usable, or should the entire reference be junked as non-verifiable? Second, I know you didn't bring this up, but if you would take a look at the demographics section. The two photos on the left don't work with the current formatting, and I don't want to lose the census data as I think it's very illustrative of the population rise and fall of the city. Do you have any ideas on how those can be formatted?

Many thanks for your help. Take care -- PacknCanes 06:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest -- I haven't gone through the whole thing with a fine-toothed comb yet. Most of the copyediting has been done so far by EurekaLott and Pentawing; I've been more focused on exactly what to include (and then rewriting the sections that I do work on). I'll get around to going through it more tomorrow, but I was a journalism major in college, so I'd like to think that I'll catch most stuff. Probably not all of it, I'll admit, but not even four eyes can do the trick for me all the time. :) PacknCanes 07:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

talk page archiving

Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony!

Hey Tony, just checking up and saying you're doing pretty well. I've seen you around a lot and anyways my main point is to say: I'd like to nominate you for adminship. You currently have 1731 edits, and the magic number for most of us is 2000. So when you get that lucky 2000, leave a note at my talk page stating so, and I'll write up your RfA. Cheers! R e dwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan

I am thinking of nominating the article for FA soon, but I need a final check of the prose before I proceed. If you get the chance, can you look over the article and tell me if there is anything that has been missed? Thanks. Pentawing 04:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the comments, much of the history details are in a sub-article (the history section is merely a summary). As for "school vs. university," I am not sure what you meant here. Can you clarify? On the other hand, I am carefully copyediting the entire article per your suggestions. Thanks. Pentawing 18:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. However, I didn't see that confusion anywhere in the article. Exactly where did you see the problem? Thanks. Pentawing 02:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and did some modifications, including the following:

"Proportion" to "size." The original author of that material had that in mind.
"Academic members" to "faculty." I am unsure of this, since faculty seems to be a popular term, especially in the U.S. ("academic member" isn't a term that I normally hear). The number refers to all members of the faculty, including non-tenured members. How should I word this?
Removed "prestigious" in front of National Academy. Normally, I don't hear this description being used explicitly (though I could be wrong).

As for the headings, I will defer to your suggestions though it seems that academics is a very popular heading in other university articles. If I wish to use academics as a heading, how do you recommend it be used if the heading is used at all? Anyways, I am thinking of nominating this article for FA soon. Should I wait longer before I proceed? Thanks. Pentawing 03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I decided on "academic profile" for the heading instead of "teaching and learning." Anyways, let me know when you are finished. Pentawing 05:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You left a note concerning the passage about a U-M flag on the moon being "silly." However, I believe it is an interesting anecdote concerning the alumni network of U-M. This is a unique fact which is often noted by people from U-M, especially university administrators and those affiliated with the alumni network. Pentawing 04:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it be removed then (that is what you seem to be implying)? Pentawing 04:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edits seem a bit silly, so I reverted to the previous version (if you don't mind). However, I would be open to a better version of it. Pentawing 05:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup of the Microsoft lead!

Admittedly that was the toughest part, as I generally can only do more "functional" prose then the "brilliant" variety :). Also thanks for objecting to featured article candidates with poor writing :). Now, I look forward to your objection to my article :).

(BTW I don't use the search thing here as I don't have that high of an opinion of it, I generally just use google... :))

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military History of Canada

Hi Tony, I've been going through the articles on FAC that you're tearing apart quite nicely :). I'm no english major, so I'd like to know what you think of the newly-reworked lead of the Military History of Canada. Mostly I just want writing advice from a professional editor :). Plus, I don't want to waste my time reworking a 50kb article if my changes don't help. One more thing—I worked on the U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program, addressing most of your concerns, though I'm not sure what the problem is with "The program's roots". Any insight would be most appreciated. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FAC/searching

Well, I agree with you about the writing of course (of course its though for me to write FA-standard prose of course :)) :). Anyway, sure, the iMac thing sounds kind of fun and in need of a restructure :).

Also, for searching, you can use something like '"content" site:en.wikipedia.org' on google to restrict yourself to this wikipedia without mirrors - most of the time that works for content and/or finding a page. Although in rare cases if you are looking for a page name the search here can help, its generally not as accurate though :).

Oh yeah - before I forget - the wikipedia search guide is at WP:SEARCH. :)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bach intro

Hi Tony1. Did you mean what I said about the musical family? Maybe I didn't express it well. What I meant was the phrase "one of the most amazing musical families", or whatever it said, is a kind of polite euphemism, because from everything we know it really is THE most amazing musical family, and "one of" seemed to be a kind of shilly-shallying phrase. Since we have no evidence that there's any other family that comes anywhere close, why not just say that it is indeed the most musical family about which we have any records? That was my point, even if I somehow didn't get it across well. Jeremy J. Shapiro 09:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Canada

Thank you very much for your work on this article, it is much improved. Please do note that all of my FACs spend several weeks on peer review, and I always include a request for copyediting as I am well aware that I am quite hopeless at it. If you have any more free time it would be great if you could have a look at Voter turnout, which just cleared PR and is set to be my next FAC. - SimonP 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program

Hi Tony, I've gone through U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program in its entirety, and while my editing skills leave alot to be desired, I've made a number of changes. Do you still oppose its FAC nomination? --Spangineer (háblame) 01:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes... and here I thought I was a decent writer :). Great job on this; now we just need to get some more people like you around here so that you don't feel obligated to proofread every featured article candidate that comes down the pike. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, I've attempted to address all your outstanding issues on this FAC. What's left that I need to take care of to get your approval? I think we're really close here, and I'd like to get this moving on before it runs out of steam. Cheers! — Johantheghost 10:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist No. 10

I've made some changes to this article as you suggested. If you could take another look at the article and respond at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federalist No. 10, that would be great. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, I've made some changes to the article per your comments. I'm afraid that I perhaps can't be as helpful as you would wish; see my comments on the FAC page. If you wish the article to adopt your particular preferences, it may be more efficient for you to simply edit the article yourself. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to leave Peta a message.

Click here to leave RobertG a message.

Click here to leave Wahoofive a message.

Click here to leave Ryan a message.

Click here to leave Nicholas a message.

Click here to leave Carmildo a message.

Click here to leave Wayward a message.

Click here to leave Wakymacs a message.

Generally/Typically

Hi, Tony. I read your reviews on Featured article candidates regularly, as you seem to be one of the few editors there with experience as a copy editor. You obviously know what you are talking about, and I learn a great deal. But help me with this one: You recently commented in the Hamburger candidacy page that there was "a 'generally' that should be 'typically'". Can you explain the difference in usage for me? My dictionary lists them as synonyms. Thanks! BrianSmithson 11:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Tony. I generally try to use my words correctly, at least on a typical day. ;) BrianSmithson 02:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Ranger Division

My dear Tony, I merely wanted to thank you both for the extensive work you performed at that article and your support at its FAC stage. Allow me to tell you that your contribution was fantastic and comprehensive, and it raised the article's quality as a whole immensely. Your attention to detail and writing style has also been very instructive to me for future contributions. Once again, thank you. I hope we get to collaborate again in the future. Warmest wishes, Shauri smile! 21:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

links in microsoft

Indeed - I don't mind one way or the other but another person went through after you de-linked the lowvalue years n' stuff and relinked them again. So I guess they are important to some people :) - thanks again for the edits! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft

just go ahead and overwrite my changes - I'll take care of them as they were minor. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it :). Take a break and maybe come at it at a later time, its not too pressing though, so take your time :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Soviet split

Thanks for your message. It's a long time since I wrote that article and I don't know what state it's in now, and I don't much care whether it's a featured article or not. I wrote it before they days when every article had to have references. Does the Britannica have references? No. But I will see what I can do about it. Adam 09:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

Hi Tony. I saw your question at Nichalp's talk page. Chiming in for him, you can download images from other wikis and upload it to commons provided you credit the original uploader in the description page and provide a link to the original image. Also, it would be nice if you inform the original uploader and provide a link to the commons image from the original image page. However, you can do these only if the license is commons-compatible. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, messaging you after a long time. See here's the problem: If an image is uploaded in the en: wikipeida, it is visible only in the en:wikipedia. If it is uploaded in the de: wikipedia, it is visible only in the de: wikipedia. So you can see we'll be having duplicate images. To prevent this, we have the wikimedia commons: so that images can be uploaded to a common project, that can be linked to all wikimedia projects.

What can be uploaded to commons

Free images ONLY: ie GFDL compatible: viz:- PD, GFDL, cc-by, cc-by-sa
Free images without English text. Therefore maps, charts etc with (English) text are not suitable.

To upload images there, you'd need to create an account first. If you upload an image from de: to commons, make sure you copy the information verbatim. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Suggestion for Peer Review advice

As I am generally in favor of anything that may increase reviewer participation on Peer Review, I suggest that you place your suggestion to have submitters send a note to other contributors asking for feedback on Wikipedia talk:Peer review for others to see. The one point of concern I see is what to do when a submitter is not aware of any other Wikipedians with knowledge or interest in an articles subject matter. --Allen3 ^talk 16:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: sound excerpts and copyright

Hi! Template:Music sample seems to be the fair-use tag you're after. As for your work on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Guidelines for using sound excerpts, it seems very good to me. Also, it's great to see more audio creeping onto Wikipedia. :) Michael 04:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps Template:PermissionAndFairUse is what you're after? If that's not suitable, I believe a new tag will need to be created. As for the other template, I agree with your concerns. Michael 06:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a copyrighed, used with permission, no fair use template, (Template:Copyrighted), but media under such terms is no longer acceptable on Wikipedia. Michael 11:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium

Dear Tony, I have submitted Belgium for peer review. I would like to submit Belgium as a FAC. I know you are a usual critique within this club. I therefore ask you whether you could have a look at the article before I submit it. As a non native speaker I have some doubt about the orthograph, style and grammar of this article. Thank you Vb 20:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony, Thank you very much for your copyedit! That's a great job. I love your English and your criticisms are all sound and useful. I have now changed the Belgium article according to your remarks. Don't hesitate to check this up. I'll soon remove the copyedit flag and submit the article as FAC. Yours Vb 09:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for adminship

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tony1 and accept or reject the nomination and answer the questions. Lemme know when you've done as such :) R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, you forgot to sign your acceptance. Then add the page to watchlist, and I'll post it at RfA :) R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green's fine. Now just sit back and watch :) R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis

Thanks for your contributions to Atlantis, it really helped clean up some of the language and made it a much better read. The article has come a long way in 2 months. Check out an older version. Reflex Reaction 13:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linking query in FAC

Hi Tony, thanks for your suggestion. I read the pages you suggested, and I have to say that I don't think linking a term like lepton twice in the ATLAS article, once in the Physics Program section, and once waaay down in the Data Systems section, doesn't seem to contradict those guidelines. The meaning of the word is important to understand the concept, and someone who doesn't understand it the second time will have great difficulty finding the first link given the length of the article. Or do I misunderstand? -- SCZenz 16:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mário de Andrade

Tony, thanks for your comments at the FAC, and thanks even more for your edits. I understand that you wanted to get to some more edits, but I was hoping you might let me know if there's anything I can do to improve the article. The nomination seems to have stalled, and I'm concerned that it'll archived for no consensus, even though it hasn't really received much in the way of opposition. Thanks. Chick Bowen 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bach images from German Wikipedia

Dear Tony1, I think no one will object to the reuse of any Wikipedia image as long as the given license is respected. What is more, the particular images you mention are public domain. The only thing to consider is whether to move them to Wikicommons. Best regards, Qpaly (Christian) 08:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

You can have whatever you like, to me pictures are in children's book, illustrations in adult's and reference books. But I don't feel very strongly one way or the other.

Spanish renaissance, especially ecclesiastic architecture was more influenced by French pilgrims visiting the numerous Spanish shrines any Arab influences that remained were suppressed, (think inquisition). How the Alhambra survived is a miracle. Philip II recalled Spanish architects from Florence to design Escorial c1570,which is based on a Roman palace (I've forgotten where, probably Spalato) Spanish architecture then became a little more restrained sort of high renaissance and mannerism, but I'm not wandering into tangents off subject, people can look these things up for themselves if they are interested. Regarding the Arabs in Sicily, their architecture tended to be geometric etc., baroque is scrolls and flows, I would discount great influence there too, even if I did think it, it's not mentioned in any of the ref. books on the subject, and one thing is for certain here, any own opinions are always found out. Regards Giano | talk 09:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa/commas

Hi, No I'm actually a fan of commas! They're sadly underused in much of the writing I come across. Dlyons493 Talk 11:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The personal requests you asked

From the peer review for Architecture of Mac OS X you asked me:

Two personal requests: What's the difference between 'crash' and 'hang'? AND How do you key in the curly apostrophe—I can only access this by keying in (ampersand)rsquo(semicolon), and would love to do it in one keystroke.

Well, basically,...a crash is usually recoverable, while a hang isn't. When an application is crashing, it is not responding and not doing what you normally expect it to. A hang, on an operating system using cooperative multitasking will most likely make the entire system hang, and you will need to restart the OS (resulting in you losing unsaved work, we've all been there...!), but on OSes such as Mac OS X and Windows XP which use preemptive multitasking, a restart should not be required because the task/program having trouble can be terminated.

To be honest, though I'm not proud of saying this, I'm too sure about your second question. I don't use the curly apostrophe, I think the easiest way to get it, really, is to use the Special Characters palette (I see you're on Mac OS X, so yes, this is instructions for Mac OS X). Go into the Finder, and select 'Special Characters' from the Edit menu. On the sidebar, in the palette, open the Punctuation section, in there you'll find the curly apostrophe. Click on your target of where you want to insert it (wikipedia edit box, textedit, word document, etc etc), and click the Insert button in the palette.

If you don't have this option in your Edit menu, then you must be using OS X 10.2 or an even older version, and I think if I remember correctly those versions don't have the special characters palette, but instead the old Key Caps program in your Applications folder that might be able to do it.

I hope this is what you wanted.

If you need any more help, or have any more questions, feel free to ask.

— Wackymacs 19:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses to my two questions. Let me know how your OS X Architecture article goes. I wonder whether you can safely omit 'Mac' from 'Mac OS X', after the first occurrence? Tony 19:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is often referred to as OS X, now that everyone knows of it (in the computer world). Some even write it as OSX, but I think OS X looks better. However this isn't official, Apple only seem to ever call it Mac OS X. — Wackymacs 19:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you've seen the article on iMac. Various people have been tinkering with it, and I put it through Peer Review a month ago (although nothing much came up). I'd like to get it to FA standard by the end of November. Tony 19:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've seen all the Mac articles here, I've been making a huge effort towards the Apple Macintosh article, which was a recent Article Improvement Drive nomination, and it got through, and had a week's time of being improved. I think the Apple Macintosh, summarizing the history and all the aspects of the Mac (history, cult, software/hardware, etc etc) is more important than the iMac article, and then once Apple Macintosh is FA standard, then I'll be interested in doing iMac.

I must ask, since you're really good at copy-editing, can you copy-edit Xanadu House, the first article I wrote for Wikipedia. It needs quite a rewrite, and I've tried to get it to FA twice and failed. — Wackymacs 19:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, that's fine. There's no rush. :) — Wackymacs 20:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that bit of minor editing so far, I must admit its not be best piece of work ever. I wrote it rather quickly, and a rather long time ago. It is however a really great topic, and would be ideal to become an FA once its been rewritten and sorted out. — Wackymacs 20:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luto again

Hi, Tony. Have you noticed that Lutoslawski is currently scheduled to be the front-page article on Sunday 6th Nov? I've made some of the changes to the intro you suggested a month ago. Did you ever find references for the Bartok/Stravinsky/Prokofiev influences? - and Luto's influence on other composers' style? They should go in the article before the go in the intro. If you have any references let me know them I'll try and dig them out: I may have time to write something over the next week or so (unless you have time to do it yourself). The only thing I can think of from the top of my head where he influenced others is the use of the "curlew mark" for unsynchronised repeats of small phrases in late Britten (e.g. Death in Venice, String Quartet No. 3), and I've never seen that cited as a direct Luto influence. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lead "snapshot" for the front page is just a Wiki page; it may be protected, but since I'm an admin (and it seems you may be one too soon) I can edit it nevertheless. So I figured there's no hurry to do that, I can copy the lead over towards the end of next week when we're sure it's stable. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA - a response

I looked over your RfA board and was wondering whom you are referring to (User:Giano or User:Bishonen). However, I don't know what to say about this since I normally don't become involved with these things. The fact that one of your antagonists is going about convincing others of their case against you (if I read correctly) is something I don't condone, but you have to realize that sooner or later conflicts are going to arise. I can't stomach conflicts myself, but I have to keep that in mind whenever I get involved with Wikipedia (an open environment with various egos fighting against one another). Nevertheless, I will be willing to support your candidacy due to your good works here at Wikipedia (and the last thing I want to see is a good user like yourself leave the project and hand this whole endeavour to the mob). I am hoping that you will not leave Wikipedia completely, that if push comes to shove you should instead take some time off and then return (a "Wikibreak" as some call it). On the upside, the RfA board doesn't appear borderline (36 support votes to 9 oppose at last count). I can't see how this could fail unless one of the people you mentioned is indeed trying to sabotage it. If there is something I missed, please fill me in on it. I'll try to help if I can. Pentawing 01:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your RfA

Greetings—I've run into you once or twice as part of the composers project but unfortunately I spend less time there lately, so I don't think I've interacted with you much. However, I have seen your work about and think that on the whole it is excellent; Wikipedia needs editors who have a strong eye for quality prose and factual accuracy, and who can fairly judge the merits of an article. I've seen plenty of examples of your work on that and on that basis I endorsed your request.

However, I do think a calm approach to disagreements is important for adminship and on the basis of your recent comments on FAC and elsewhere I had to change to a neutral stand. Your editing skills and knowledge make you a real asset to the project. But people are understandably uneasy at the prospect of granting adminship to someone who reacts harshly, even under provocation. (And yes, I can clearly see what would have led you to frustration.) I've seen your stated intent to leave the project in the event that your RfA fails and I think that would be a real shame, and a great loss to Wikipedia. Particularly considering that you hadn't expressed any great desire for admin rights in the first place: it's a loss for a good editor to spend too much time on admincruft, too, and if it weren't sometimes frustrating not to be able to carry out the occasional admin task without having to ask for assistance I wouldn't want people who are almost entirely content editors to become admins at all!

I do hope you'll reconsider your decision to leave. Whatever embarrassment you may face as a result of it will blow over and be forgotten. Particularly if you see how your words may have come off to others as frustrated for their own reasons as you are for yours, whose emotions are running high and nerves wearing thin trying to get through the FAC process. (I've done it only once myself, and as someone sensitive to criticism, it was stressful for me even though relatively speaking I didn't get much in the way of opposition.) The points you make are valid, and your criticisms needed, but you've come off harshly and I know at least one of the other editors feels like you've been dismissive toward her, whether that was your intent or not.

If you truly do shun conflict and wish not to be immersed in it, perhaps withdrawing the nomination gracefully and quietly addressing the concerns of your opposition on their talk pages attempting to seek resolution would be a step toward that, and no one with any sense would hold that against you. I would hate to see you leave the project on bad terms over one incident that got out of hand; it would be our loss as well as yours. Respectfully, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfA

Hi PacknCanes

I thought I'd alert you to the fact that User Redwolf kindly nominated me for adminship last week, which I accepted. Regrettably, this has coincided with a stouch with several huge egos whose FAC I helped on, and then critiqued after they'd trashed my entire contribution. I normally shun conflict, but here, I'm emersed in it, and I feel utterly destroyed. One of the protagonists appears to be drumming up support for his cause on other people's talk pages.

If the nomination fails Monday night, which appears likely now since the 75/25 voting balance is borderline, I'll be trashing my personal page and not returning: it's just too embarrassing and unpleasant to go on.

So, if you have the inclination, the war zone is at: [1]

Tony, I'm glad to support your nomination. Like I said on the RfA page, the more prose-hounds we have, the better. However, please don't consider the comments by Bishonen et al. to be personal attacks on you; they're entitled to their opinion just as you're entitled to yours. Remember, no opinions are wrong, but some are more right than others. :) Take care -- PacknCanes | say something! 04:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you would find it personally upsetting, yes; but remember what you're dealing with here. This is the internet. No one knows who you are on the internet. If someone walked up to you in a shopping mall, you wouldn't have any clue who they were ten ways from Sunday. So don't take it personally, because WP and the 'net in general are impersonal by definition. I concur with what Mindspillage said above here: it would be a great loss to WP if you left over this nomination. It simply isn't worth it. You're too good of a contributor to give in that easily; I do hope you reconsider. PacknCanes | say something! 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I do see a herd mentality at work as well. I understand entirely where you're coming from, and I can sympathize. I run a message board for hockey fans, and they tend to get really passionate in the midst of an argument...which leads to common sense going out the window, and you can guess what winds up happening. But that's not the fault of the board necessarily, just the people using it. If you avoid those people, the board itself becomes infinitely more palatable. The same thing applies here -- even if you don't become an admin, take a wikibreak for a month or so, then come back and just keep on plugging along the way you were before. I'm certainly not in this because I want to be Jimbo 2.0; I have no designs on being anything other than a FAC critic and an article contributor. I enjoy myself here and I think that I contribute enough to the site to hang around. I know that you're also a valuable contributor, so I hope that the actions of a few don't cloud the good that you've contributed to the site. Ultimately it's your call, and I don't want to presume to make it for you...but know that you have a firm backer in this corner. Feel free to drop me a line anytime; I don't mind being a sounding board...if you're not on here, my email is bleblanc at nc dot rr dot com. Here's to regaining your sanity... :) PacknCanes | say something! 06:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I am glad you are up to become an administrator, Redwolf is a nice user. You certainly deserve to be an admin here at Wikipedia. Don't get too down about it, I know its not nice when your work and hard efforts are not appreciated by the majority, but thats because most of those people there think too highly of themselves. I have put my Support vote in, I don't know if it will help or not, but I hope it does. I wouldn't leave if you don't become an admin just yet, I am giving myself time for the RfA, I have a very high edit count but I think I need to do more work before I become an admin. We need you here at Wikipedia, more people like you, don't leave! :) — Wackymacs 07:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave tony numero uno!!! I left once, got really mad about a fight I had. Didn't make a difference to the people I was feuding with, it only made me feel bad. It's not worth it Tony. I've done good work, over 2,000 edits, or there abouts I think, made friends, supported people. You think anyone will nominate or support me? Probably not. But you have to ask yourself, does it really matter what other people think? If they think the worst of you, are they really worth worrying over & eventually dying of a heart attack at age 45? Not really I say. If you wanna talk, leave me a line. Or better still, pop round on my user page for a cup of coffee. Anyway......... Spawn Man 08:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I left the project once, too.

I think you believe passionately in improving the quality of Wikipeida, and I assure you that won't be served by your leaving. My best advice is to withdraw your RFA immediately (you yourself didn't seem terribly worried about whether it succeeds), go and take a fortnight off Wikipedia and put it behind you. There are some large egos here, and I find the best way to deal with it is to be patient: chip away, don't try and make all your changes in one go. As a sanguine eventualist, I believe there's eons of time on Wikipeida. I do think you have been treated ungratefully; but perhaps given this recent experience you may feel it would be more productive to concentrate on articles in your area of expertise.

Really, Tony, Wikipedia will be much worse off without you. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope you don't leave. Keeping the standard of our featured articles high is a noble cause, and the quality of prose is too often something that gets overlooked - something which it seems you've done a good job of fixing. Ambi 10:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was unimpressed with the changes, but I let them stand and let the matter rest. My objection was only a weak one, and would have been about the only one had you not completely overreacted to mild criticism from a couple of others on that page. You so nearly came close to being overwhelmingly confirmed as an administrator, and have only yourself to blame for managing to be defeated from that point, largely for overreactions like that on my talk page. Ambi 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping, Ambi!! Spawn Man 00:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Please dont leave based on having a bad RFA, hell i've failed the RFA process TWICE! (#1 #2) People tend to be quite obnoxious and overreaching on RFA simply because we've had people gain adminship then go psycho. While I understand where your coming from (hell I took a 3 month wiki-break after my first RFA failure) please dont assume that you wont make it through on a second or even third try. Adminship is not a "recognition" of work, but more of a tool used by editors who spend most of their time vandal-whacking. Your work is good and you have gained recognition for it by some, but please remember wiki just like the rest of life, is filled with people who sometimes take it out on others. You should know by now you cant always get along with everyone in the real world, wiki is the exact same way.

Let me leave you with one last thought i've learned since my 2 failed RFA's ... when people on RFA piss you off, dont respond, better to bitch and swear in the real world than reply in text for the whole world to see. If you bitch in the real world no one on here knows about it and cant use it against you in the future! ALKIVAR™ 10:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wellm I wish you wouldn't take the RFA thing personally. We all have disagreements, but keeping it in check helps one gain adminship. During one's RFA nom, one has to be on his best behavior. Take a wikibreak, it might help you calm things down. I've seen a lot more worse noms on RFA, so please dont get disheartened. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I've so far ignored your comments and lies about me, but when I saw this comment of yours I laughed out loud, [2], you really are just a kid in a play ground, if that's how you control your own group, I pray you never get any control here. I'm pasting this comment here so I'm not accused of trying to sway the "herd" instinct, bit unfair that term - not a ploy recommended to win them round really is it? Giano | talk 15:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA - More thoughts

Having read the latest on your RfA, I think it would be wise for you to withdraw, sadly the Oppose votes are rising more quickly than the Support votes, despite my thinking not long ago that you'd get a lot more Support than Oppose within the next 48 hours. In a few months time, and with an even better edit count, you can resubmit and you'll get more support from a wider range of people, and different people too. If you let the RfA continue I think it will only get worse at this point, especially because of the way many users are currently thinking of the situation because of your reaction, which i cannot blame you for. Whatever you do, just don't leave Wikipedia because of it. — Wackymacs 20:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well leaving WP will show you up as a coward, but I guess then it wouldn't matter. I think we need more copy editors on WP, like yourself, but not only that, even though I know I don't really know you. However, I do know that you know what you're what you're doing (Am I any making sense?) But of course it is not for me to say wether you stay or not, it is your choice. — Wackymacs 20:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave

Tony1, I noticed you've been frustrated at your RfA this week. RfA is certainly a frustrating and often high-tension place, which can bring out the best and worst in some people. You are a valuable editor here, and your work is deeply appreciated. You would be a great loss to Wikipedia if you did leave. I urge you to reconsider and view your RfA as constructive criticism. There's been many currently successful admins who had two, three, four, or even five attempts at RfA before passing. In either case, is adminship essential to you? You do great work, and Wikipedia is already in short supply of classical music loving people. Please reconsider your decisions. If you need, perhaps take a short Wiki-Break? Nothing cures stress like a well-deserved break. If you choose to do so, come back refreshed. I hope to see you soon. Regards, Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

No, I had no idea there were any problems. Your Bach edits have been excellent. Sorry you've gotten disenchanted with the project. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin vs. Editor

Tony, you haven't heard from me before and I haven't placed anything on your RfA. I wanted to come here to offer another viewpoint to you that might be helpful in your consideration of yourself as a Wikipedian or not.

I watched in dismay some months ago as a very fine editor virtually self-destructed on his own RfA. It is possible that his RfA would have passed; in fact when he withdrew, it was close to passing. Nevertheless, he took great offense to the comments made on his RfA and has since become very disenchanted with Wikipedia. This sounds very similar to what you have been encountering.

I'd like to offer a few pieces of advice;

RfA, or indeed any portion of Wikipedia, is not monolithic. What has upset you on your RfA have been people, not the RfA process. I noted you were upset that people changed their votes. They have the right to do so. It's not hypocritical in any respect. RfA makes no attempts to restrict people's changes in vote any more than RfA restricts nominees ability to withdraw. The people with whom you are upset make up a very small portion of Wikipedia. I fear you are taking the negative experience you are having with a small handful of editors and expanding it to condemn all of Wikipedia. In any sufficiently large group, ANYbody is going to find people they dislike. Even Jesus got mad at people for doing stupid things. We all do. Expanding your hatred to all of Wikipedia is akin to expanding a hatred of one person you know to be a condemnation of the entire human race. It is very obvious from all the support votes that you have received that quite a number of people think very highly from you. If you have the ability to expand the hatred of a small subset of people to cover all of Wikipedia, surely you have the ability to extend the high esteem of a larger subset than the other subset of people to cover all of Wikipedia.
The very best editor on Wikipedia can make a horrible administrator. Likewise, the very best administrator can make a terrible editor. In fact, we have a person up for RfA right now who does very little editing of articles; he self-admittedly isn't good at it. But, it's likely he will make a fine administrator. The two respective functions within Wikipedia have little relation to each other. Think of it within this analogy; two people work at a company. One is an accountant, one is a production manager. Both are paid roughly the same. Both have the same benefits. Both are held in the same esteem. If the accountant tried to be a production manager, he might suck at it and cause production to drop 30%. That doesn't make him any less capable as an accountant. Similarly, the production manager might not know the first thing about what a ledger is, but that doesn't affect his ability to be a production manager. If either of them applied for the other's job, and was not hired, do you think it would be appropriate for them to think they suck at the jobs they were originally doing? I've just spent a few minutes reviewing the oppose votes on your RfA. I have found nothing that indicates anyone feels your contributions as an editor are anything less than exemplary.
You should never...ever...view the bestowing or refusal of admin status as any indicator of the worthiness of your contributions to Wikipedia. It is not a forum for deciding the worthiness of a Wikipedian. There are a large number of people that I have run into who self admit that they would make horrible administrators, but are fine editors. Being an administrator is not an honor. It's just a role within Wikipedia. Some are good at it. Some are not. RfA tries to ensure that those that may be ill-suited to the role do not prematurely go into that role. RfA is in part intended to help nominees understand how they can prepare themselves to be an admin, even if their RfA passes.
There is nothing...nothing...about being an admin that opens doors either for yourself or other editors. It is precisely the opposite. Admins are given three software rights; to block people, protect pages, and delete pages and images. That's it. All of those things are actions that stop things. Having admin software rights would in no way improve your ability to improve Wikipedia.
As a result of the above most recent comment, the nature of an administrator's work is virtually by definition going to induce conflict. Blocking someone can and does anger people. Protecting a page sometimes throws an admin right into the middle of a nasty editting fight. Deleting pages or images can really upset the people who made those contributions. The people who contribute to RfA are well aware of this. As a result, they are very keen to make sure that people who are given admin software rights have demonstrated coolness under stressful situations. Regardless of whatever anyone has said on your RfA in opposition, I can virtually guarantee you that much of the opposition is based on their perception (right or wrong) that you do not handle contentious situations well. I have not voted on your RfA nor am I inclined to. However, I did vote in opposition on another extremely contentious RfA precisely because the nominee had become so contentious in the RfA. Please take the following (and indeed all th above) in the kind respect that it is intended, as I mean no insult in any respect: In large part, your responses on the RfA have been digging your own grave, climbing into it, and then being angry that you're in a grave. Your contributions to Wikipedia have proven to me that you are well beyond intelligent enough to understand this paradox and your role in it.

Recently, a new Guide to requests for adminship has begun development. One of the elements that has been included has been an attempt to caution editors that contentious RfAs can lead to unsavory results. You can see this still-under-development guide at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. It might interest you to read that document in full. In particular, I would like to ask your permission to cite your RfA as a contentious nomination in this section. Placing your RfA there is not like some hall of fame of RfAs that have gone horribly wrong. Instead, it offers a resource to potential nominees to understand more clearly what it is they may be getting themselves into by accepting a nomination. As you noted yourself, if you'd been more prepared you would not have accepted the nomination. This document isn't intended to ward people off from becoming admins. It's intended to help the nominee, the RfA process and the contributors so that the process is a good one for all involved.

There is no case to be made that because you have threatened to leave Wikipedia, you must. Staying here is not providing any proof that anyone else was right and you were wrong. Leaving doesn't prove you are right and they are wrong. Whether you stay or leave has no bearing at all on the veracity of anyone's position on your RfA. You have made outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. They are most welcome. If you decide to leave, I strongly encourage you not to make that decision in any respect related to your RfA. It has nothing to do with your value to Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the value of your edits. It has nothing to do with how good or bad of a person you are. You already know how good or bad you are; no amount of remonstrations of kudos from people whom you've never met, are likely never to meet, and are merely electrons streaming from a screen to you should change that.

All the best, --Durin 23:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About your recent decision

Dear Tony,

I know you have probably heard this from other Wikipedians, in different prose, many times before; however, I simply cannot survey the loss of such a valuable contributor such as yourself with equanimity, and I feel that I must add my voice to the many. RfA can seem like a horrid place; people being judgemental, critical, and unappreciative of one's efforts to make Wikipedia better. Indeed, so can much of the rest of Wikipedia; I was very much on the verge of leaving over a recent article dispute which was weighing me down.

Why didn't I leave? The answer is, that I had not encountered problems going about my business as a normal Wikipedia contributor, and that good work is definitely being done around the project. I took the view that, if I stay and do my best to help, I can make Wikipedia a better place. One can safely ignore the positively vitriolic aspects of admin rights and Wikipedia administration if one wishes, and simply remain as a contributor; also, you must remember that people in any sort of collaborative environment will invariably become competitive, and that their emotions shown towards you are most likely not targeted at you personally.

Although I expect that, to some extent, your mind is already made up to leave, I would like to please ask you to reconsider your decision. The work that you have done is both prestigious, valuable and of the highest quality; it would be a true tragedy to lose someone like you over what is in truth such a trivial matter, and also in turn to lose you as a personality around here. Remember, you have lots of friends here which you may not realise exist; although I do not feel that we have met in person, I would like to thank you very much for your hard work that you have done around Wikipedia. I am always available to talk to, if you would merely like a friendly ear to discuss matters with, and I would be honoured to receive communication from you, especially as a fellow classical music enthusiast.

I wish you all the very best, and once again thank you for your hard work.

My best regards,

NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 23:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA closed vs. open process

Tony,

I've been reading some of your comments, in particular this set of comments on Flcellogoy's talk page. I wanted to take a moment to explain why RfA is an open process rather than a closed one.

It isn't sufficient for me to just say Wikipedia is not a democracy; that answer is insufficient to this and does not reflect all that Wiki means within this context. That said, it is important to understand that there is no democracy in action here. The RfA process is not an election. When someone accepts a nomination, they are not running for office. It is not a popularity contest. It is not a means by which a nominee is patted on the back for work well done. It has nothing to do with any of that.

RfA is a means by which concensus is developed regarding whether a person is reasonably suited to handling the duties of being an administrator. So far, it is the best way we have come up with that can help us arrive at a clear picture of whether a person is suitable for such tasks. Virtually by definition, it has to be an open forum so that we can openly discuss a person's abilities, limitations and likely failure or success as an administrator. If RfA were made into strictly a closed voting process, discussion of candidates would still occur, but they would instead occur in non-open forums or scattered across a variety of talk pages. This could actually end up being more divisive than an open forum format for RfAs; people could readily be accused of forming mini-cabals bent on getting their friends as admins. With an open RfA, support and oppose votes both are challenged in the open. This format helps to keep the process clean of more faults than you might imagine.

None of this is to say that RfA is without fault. It has undergone improvement, is undergoing improvement (see WP:GRFA for work in action), and will continue to undergo improvement. However, it's unlikely that it will ever be a closed process because it is not an election but a concensus gathering mechanism.

Personally, I am rather opposed to the whole notion of 'voting' within this context. It tends to breed the notion that it is an election. This undermines the process in my opinion. But, as yet, I don't know and have not seen any suggestions on metrics for concensus that would not rely on some system that used votes, regardless of what it was called.

I do think there is substantial room for improvement with regards to the entire system of RfA, adminship, and dispute resolution. There is no feedback loop in place for determining if the process is in need of improvement, where it might be failing, or if a particular failure is an exception rather than a pattern. Not having any means of determining whether our process is producing the desired results means that the process itself is lacking some basis in validity. However, coming up with such feedback loops is a very difficult, time intensive task.

I hope this helps, --Durin 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mi gosh people!

None of this is helping Tony! All this bickering & complaining & advicing & threatening is not helping anyone! We should all just leave him be to collect his thoughts & sort out what he feels in his head, after all, in the end, all that we are left with is ourselves... I trust Tony will make the right decision for himself. But for now we should forget his blunders, accusations etc etc & let the man be! Man, I should get a counseling job... honestly... Spawn Man 00:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, Spawnman. (I was pleased to receive advice from two of those guys, although not the threats about legal threats - and he's still going at me.) :-) Tony 00:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your message

If you want to have your user page deleted, all you need to is place a tag similar to {{db|Leaving project; this is my user page and I want it deleted. Thank you}}. It will be placed for speedy deletion then and I'm sure some admin will come along and delete it. Re; restricting voting to Bureaucrats. I think that will suffer from problems as well as they will be seen as being key masters to adminship. Wikipedia works as a community, not as a bureaucracy. I think the title "bureaucrat" is, shall we say, unfortunate :) The wiki model has always been about building consensus within the community for anyone interested in contributing to a particular area, not within a particular subset of the community. I do think we can add some guidelines to WP:GRFA to the effect that you mention above; expected behavior by all contributors on RfA. Thanks for your granting of use of your RfA on that page. I think it will help people in the long run, even if it is divisive right now. If I might suggest; I know others have made this suggestion, but I'd like to echo it: Take a wikibreak. Go wikiwalkabout :) Spring is in the air in Sydney this time of year. Take a trip out to Manly beach, and watch the tide come in while sifting wet sand through your toes. Go down to The Rocks and take in a tasty meat pie at some cafe. Go to the Opera House and throw a few dollars into one of the bagpiper's hats and tell him you're glad for his contribution to music (even if bagpipes make you climb the walls :)). It doesn't really matter what it is; go relax. You're 50 years old. You know as well as I do by this time in your life that there's nothing like a break away from something to reduce the intensity of it. You can hear a virtuoso performance of a deeply emotional movement and weep as the sounds waft across your ears. Then, just a few days removed, have a hard time remembering the depth of emotions you experienced. Brains, souls, hearts need breaks just as much as our muscles do. Come back when you've had a chance to breathe deep and put the past in the past. --Durin 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do what I can

Sorry to see that things on RfA are going so badly. Try not to take it personally, and know that there are many of us who greatly appreciate all your work around here! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment

Then withdraw, Tony. This spiral of yours may have been provoked, but you have continued it un-necessarily. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I don't quite understand why you're content to let the RfA procede despite your misgivings. Nor why you appear to be announcing your intention to leave (and bagging Wikipedia) whilst campaigning for support. If you don't want to be subjected to the "hideous process", simply strike out your acceptance and put an end to it. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'm not quite sure what to make of your comment. It seems awfully fickle and provocative. All I have done is make suggestions to you on how to procede in a situation you clearly find distressing. You did not respond to any of them. I'm afraid you need to understand that RfA is a community process, and you need to make your intentions clear. If you don't want adminship, or if you plan to leave - as you have repeatedly stated - then you need to withdraw your acceptance. Please try not personalise my comments. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Scott

Tony, whatever the outcome of your RFA vote (and I don't think it's obvious either way yet), please consider not burning your bridges so that you can return to Wikipedia in future if you leave. And please try to avoid bagging Wikipedia in other forums - you know what attracted you to the project in the first place, and probably all of that is still here, it's just obscured at the moment by a more immediate experience. I've realised over the last couple of months that polishing prose to Featured Article standard or even reacting to {{cleanup}} tags is something I'm not good at, so we need authors like yourself who are. On the other hand, I think I am good at working on at {{merge}} and {{wikify}} tags that others might not be so good at.

I didn't vote on your RFA to start with, as I was uncertain, recalling an impression of an abrupt nature. After seeing the bagging you were receiving, I went back and reviewed the edits and interactions that led to that impression, and decided I was prepared to vote for you even while others were piling the oppose votes on.

In summary, there are over 40 people here who think you are suitable and ready for admin, and several of the oppose voters have also said they value your contributions as a copyeditor. So please consider that without the admin tools, you can still do what you're good at, without being distracted by admin stuff. My own RFA looks like being unanimous, but with less support votes than you have received. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilove

Tony - I'm sorry to have been relatively inactive in the last few weeks, during the recent contretemps on FAC and RFA, otherwise I hope I could have spread some oil on the rather troubled waters. FWIW, I agree with you that Sicilian Baroque could have done with some more copyediting before being promoted (indeed, I started on a copyedit off-line some days ago and just have not had the time to complete it), and I am a little surprised that the bad blood that has developed between you, Giano and Bishonen. I truly value the contributions that Giano and Bishonen (and many others) make, but your contribution is very valuable too, as the positive comments on RFA testify. I don't want to rub salt into the wounds on either side, but, as am impartial observer, it seems to me that more civility, deep breaths and walking away from the confrontation on both sides would have helped in the past and would help going forward.

Please don't take the RFA stuff to heart. Among with many others (including, for what it is worth, Giano), I have for some considerable time thought that the RFA process is somewhat broken, having become a glorified popularity contest. When I was promoted to admin a year or so ago, it was a big deal for me. As time has progressed, I find that I can do the vast majority of wikitasks that I want to do without using admin powers. I hope you realise that the wikipedia project is not about getting the praise of others, but producing good articles, and I hope you will continue to help us to do that. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving or Staying?

I must ask, now that it seems a lot of the RfA dispute is over (though I know its not all over), are you leaving WP for good or have you not decided yet? I know we don't know each other, and I don't want to seem like a pest. But you're a great editor. You don't really need the admin stuff to continue your great work. I just have the thought that you have already left because you've totally blanked your user page. Well, if you have, I hope you go on to better things! — Wackymacs 21:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your health

Tony, I noticed your comment that you are "too ill to work". I really do sympathise with you; and I am genuinely worried about you. I hope you won't think this insensitive, but the active animosity which you have said you will harbour towards Wikipedia certainly won't improve your health - it won't accomplish anything to anyone's benefit, least of all yours, and I suspect you won't even find it to be personally satisfying. It is more likely to upset any friends you have here than any Wikipedians you feel angry with. I hope I can count myself amongst those friends, and you had more support votes than oppose votes on your RfA.

It looks to me like the old story of the fallen idol: Wikipedia appears to have briefly become the most important thing in your life, you felt euphoric that such a wonderful place existed, and passionate about it. Now that you have concluded that Wikipedia cannot live up to your ideal you are completely disenchanted, and angry with Wikipedia for not being the perfect place you thought it could be. You feel that Wikipedia, which must actually have been evil all along, has turned on you.

Project yourself five years into the future, and see whether you feel your life will have been better with or without Wikipedia. Then act accordingly: if you genuinely feel the animosity you have stated, then you will probably decide that the best thing to do is leave now, with no further comment, never to return. Shake its dust off your feet.

I happen to think you have been poorly treated, but no-one can reverse things now. Do me a favour and put yourself, your life, your career first for a bit. You really do have my very best wishes. RobertG ♬ talk 11:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your adminship

I don't see why you had to take it so personally. You've got heaps of praises for being an amazing copyeditor, you've got more supports than opposes, nobody *hates* you Tony, things would be a lot better if you had not responded to the provocative statements made in your RFA. I've also gone through hard times here, there was an editor in the past who could never collaborate in a fruitful manner. You've seen Ricardo the Texan make personal attacks against me, I *did not* respond in the same manner, and eventually it paid off, some other wikipedians took note and sounded him off. You did not handle the RFA issue in a diplomatic matter, I'd have to add. Don't take it personally, please stop thinking that we're out to get your blood, treat this as a learning experience. I know you will feel betrayed by my comments, but I believe in frank talk on such issues. Since you will be leaving wikipedia, I think I'd be really optimistic to believe you'll ever return after what happened in WP, so I wish you all the best that you do from now on. I'd also thank you once again for helping copyedit some articles and having constructive dialogues. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome!

Hey Tony! No problem, I was GLAD to do it. Someone had to stand up and denounce that farce for what it was. A Kangaroo court has more decorum!!! I really hope they actually do something about the ~~ordeal~~ process. They had better, or otherwise Wikipedia will continue to hemmorage from self-inflicted wounds by losing and alienating fine editors/contributors such as you. As I said, you have my respect, Sir!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Yat-sen FARC

I've nomintated Sun Yat-sen for featured article removal. Since you originally participated in the nomination discussion, your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Sun Yat-sen. --Ji ang 08:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Firstly, I write to thank you for the constructive help you have given with the Charles Darwin article. The importance of improving the quality of writing has not been forgotten, and with some new input from others as well as additional source material, the work is in progress. I'd also like to express my sympathy about the recent stushie (Scots spelling). Wikipedia succeeds as a community with a common goal, and it's very rewarding when efforts are appreciated, but this interaction results in considerable stress from both RfA and FaC discussions, as I recently found. Having put a jokey Wikiholic tract on my user page, the following seems relevant: "Things took a turn for the worse when a "sysop" who had befriended him in the early days offered to nominate him as an admin. Flattered, he acceded to the request, even vowing to spend more time on much needed janny duties. Incautiously, he revived someone's old nomination of Charles Darwin as a featured article candidate, and was shocked to find that his repeated cropping had left a staccato style that was little liked. Fortunately a wizard from Oz began helping to edit Communicative musicality into the blighted text. While many favoured his move to admin, others mercilessly pointed out his flaws." The Sicilian Baroque article makes an interesting read, but it's disappointing that it still has some glaring grammatical errors and much of the prose is convoluted and confusing. A sad episode, and the only consolation is that "time heals all". Hope that works out for you....dave souza 18:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony

That's was a pleasure for me to work on Belgium with you. I wanted to collaborate with you once again on Blues because I remembered you wrote once on your user page you were interested in music. Now I see you want to quit WP for a failed RfA. Well a good editor is not always a good admin but a very good critique surely never is. A good critique must have enemies. The best one is hated by most. I am sorry you want to quit WP. But well one cannot quit WP as well as one cannot enter it. The WP community is anonymous in essence. So if you want to edit Blues don't hesitate before I submit it for peer review. Vb 11:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hello, Tony. I'm very pleased to see you return. Take it easy, ok?! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 09:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded -- dave souza 11:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthded --Tantalum T e lluride 21:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A big warm welcome back!

Welcome Back!!!
Hey Tony, welcome back. I'm really glad to see you're back here. I'd like to tell you a little story: Shortly after you left, I was nominated for adminship and I got turned down and pissed off about it too for a little while! RfA is scary, and I don't want to become an admin, ever. Anyway, glad to see you here - And I recently got one of my articles featured, finally. I recently started my own WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Macintosh, you may be interested in participating in it and joining. — Wackymacs 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White's grammar

Sorry, I have just changed it back. I really did not like starting with "because", and went overzealous and reverted the entire paragraph. I have changed "because of" to "due to". --liquidGhoul 13:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick White

I did the links because most other biography articles link the persons job title/occuptation and centuries are often linked. Remove them if you want, but i think it looks better with them. I haven't read any of Patrick White's novels to date, but I may in the future if I ever have the chance.

Its good to see you back here, I guess you saw my welcome message. Have you taken a look at my WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Macintosh ?— Wackymacs 15:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shostakovich

Hi Tony I saw your comments posted to the Shostakovich talk page and whole-heartedly agreed with them. I was going to write you as such, but unfortunately you had left. I am happy to see now you are back and am wondering if you would have any interest in tackling the subject at some point. The article, in my view, is seriously flawed and needs to be revised from beginning to end. At any events, cheers to you on your return. Eusebeus 10:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The main editor seems, understandably enough, quite proprietary about the page without at the same time recognising the fundamental issues that detract from the article. (This is my impression based on respnses on the discussion page.) This has deterred me from undertaking work at the moment. However, I would like to see it improved if there's some way to impress the need for revision. Eusebeus 16:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a solid plan. I'll put together a laundry list of basic concerns and pass them on (i have noted some of them on the talk page). I certainly don't want to take capricious action nor make it seem like any critciism is directed at anyone in particular; but the article is, as it stands, wanting. It reads rather like a first-year music history essay. Eusebeus 19:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as noted above, I saw your criticisms and whole-heartedly agree with them. Eusebeus 09:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed re Shost. I looked at the JSB article, btw, and I look forward to its being promoted to FAC. I had a few suggestions, which I will be happy to repeat on the FAC page. Notably, the keyboard works section is a bit slight, especially considering that this was the principal source of JSB's reputation until the Great Mass was revived by Mendelssohn. I am wondering if some attention to the 24 (a must really, given its influence), English and French Suites and/or works such as the Italian Concerto might not be better representative of JSB's keyboard writing & influence? Please let me know if you need any help. Cheers, Eusebeus 08:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW...

For what its worth, welcome back. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP

I took a stab at fixing up the grammar and diction; can you have another look at it, please? Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bach maps

No permission necessary. You can use them just you like. -84.151.124.34 = Hati 08:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

Hi Tony,

This is regarding your objection on the above-mentioned FAC. Please now have a look at the revised version, and see if there is any unaddressed issues.

~~And are you sure there is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous? I cannot find it.~~ For headings, only names that are not in lower case are official names given by the authorities, including the Standard Ticket. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous is not official policy.

- Regards, Mailer Diablo 08:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and copyediting on the FAC. I must admit that I had my frustrations when I first saw the objection (which I apologise in any case), but looks like things have turned out well in the end. Time to address other objections I think... ;) - Regards, Mailer Diablo 11:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ABC image

Thanks. I'm avoiding real life by browsing through the State Library of Western Australia online catalogue and uploading interesting PD images to Commons. Snottygobble | Talk 00:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they're all above board. Snottygobble | Talk 00:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malwa FA nomination

Hey Tony. I was wondering if you can give some inputs regarding how we can improve the prose. It would be *highly* appreciated if you can spare a few minutes and make some changes yourself. I'll go through the whole article again and try to improve any sentences that are akward. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!!

Hi! I'm so gald to see you've returned. Hope you had a nice wikibreak. 07:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

Merry Christmas!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Tony1/Archive02, and a happy New Year too! — Wackymacs 15:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Communist Party

Comment - I requested a peer review to the article, but it was soon archived. I agree that the article should have a better wording, but I can't do the copy edit myself, I'm Portuguese and I lack grammatical knowledge of the English language. If the article has a good content and its only problem is the wording, it would be great if someone could edit it in order to fix that. Afonso Silva 13:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Response—Alfonso, you need to find someone who's good at editing to go through it. WP has a list of tried, trusted and hard-working contributors who may respond if you put the article on their list. (Well, WP doesn't have that system, but should, and needs to develop some way of encouraging word-nerds to help; ahem. Apart from raising the generally poor standands of prose in the project, it would go some way towards helping second-language speakers to contribute their valuable, specialist knowledge.) Can anyone hear me? echo echo echo Tony 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, the only problem is that I don't know who are the users that may do that job. Do you suggest any user? I would be great if you could help, It's a bit frustrating hearing everyone complaining about the wording of the article and being unable to fix it. Thanks! Afonso Silva 12:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield

Hi! Thanks for your helpful comments on the Sheffield article. As a part of my day job I write and review scientific articles and I know that it is always easier for me to spot errors in someone elses writing than in my own. As such it is always good to have an outside opinion like yours on the text of an article. Thanks again, JeremyA 17:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:TUF-KAT/Featured Music Project

Happy New Year's! Check out User:TUF-KAT/Featured Music Project, which is a set of standards I may propose soon to help guide FACs on bands and such. I thought you might have some comments and/or criteria to add to the format and style section. Thanks, Tuf-Kat 08:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nightwish/archive1

First of all, thanks for your constructive criticism towards Nightwish. It really gave something to work with. However, I believe significant changes have been made to the article since you voted oppose. Please consider review your vote, as I think you might want to change it. Soothing R 12:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal

Hi, I've responded to the comments you made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Panama Canal/archive3. Want to let me know what you think? Cheers. — Johantheghost 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State University

Pentawing tells me that you helped him get the University of Michigan article's prose up to FA standards. Would you please look at the Michigan State University page and tell me what you think? (Featured article candidate page). — Lovelac7 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bach style

Hi Tony,

This is "fugueman," a sometime contributor to Wikipedia. I'm still trying to figure out how things work, haven't quite gotten the hang of the difference between talk pages, discussion, how to get messages to people, etc. Anyway, I was the one who added the lines about contrapuntal and melodic inversion to the "Bach style" section--thought I was changing the discussion page, but it changed the article.

I've since read a quite lengthy revision of the style section, which I like very much. I assume that this is yours. I did catch a couple of errors, but haven't been able to find the page to correct them. One had to do with pedagogical works. The Notebook for Anna Magdalena was not written for Wilhelm Friedemann, but for Anna Magdalena. The book pedagogical book written for Wilhelm Friedemann was the Clavierbüchlein for Wilhelm Friedemann Bach.

The second error had to do with numerology. The revision is correct in summing BACH = 14. But there was something in there about his complete name summing to 52. I'm not sure where this figure came from. JSBACH = 41. All of this is, of course, presuming that Bach used a German natural order alphabet (what Smend used), as opposed to Latin Milesian or some other form. In my own research, the only numbers that I would place confidence in are the 14 (BACH), 41 (JSBACH), and 43 (CREDO). I would not place confidence in the German natural order sums for SEBASTIAN BACH (100), JOHANN BACH (72), or JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH (158)

I want to commend your work on the article. My interest is to contribute in whatever way I can.

Cheers fugueman

Reply

Be nice to you Tony? - I'm nice to everyone....usually. This does not stem from your remarks on my articles but from the fact you took offence at a light hearted flippant remark (yes - it probably was flippant) and blew it out of all proportion. I do feel you to force your views on style and content on others, sometimes in a sarcastic and offensive way, and then become quickly angry, and that's pity as I'm sure you have a lot to offer. My mannerisms obviously irritate you too. The problem is we both visit FAC so our paths are going to cross, and it seems inevitable we shall sometimes have opposing views on a page - I see yesterday we differed over "song titles". I shall endeavour to (when necessary) "oppose" you without referring to you - we may even agree who knows!

On a lighter note: I'm sure Ghost's input in our quarrels are as embarrassing to you as they are amusing to me - who needs enemies? All I can do is endeavour to stay out of your way as much as possible, and hope that we can learn to exist with each other on the same encyclopedia. I'm not pasting this into the Beethoven pages, as there is enough spectacle there already - you can if you want to - those interested can always see it here, if they are that interested. Giano | talk 09:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the master of sarcasm - you'll find that very hard, believe me. Not too much humble pie please - it doesn't suit you. ;-( Giano | talk 10:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need some indigestion tablets in a minute Giano | talk 10:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Happy New Year, and a belated welcome back. Since I appreciate your feedback - I was hoping you'd have a read through G. Ledyard Stebbins - evolutionary biologists are my current interest - and I am completely lost when it comes to s' and 's.--nixie 03:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd believe it, I will try and write up something more than a stub later tonight.--nixie 04:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bach

Hi: I added the infobox as it's something that a lot of bio articles have. The biobox is meant as a high level overview of the subject and boils down to the date of birth/place of birth and date of death/place of death. In Bach's bio, it wasn't all that clear where he was born or died in the article text itself. I have no vested interest in keeping or deleting. I would say that if you removed the biobox template, then add the info in it to be more distinct in the article text. Please review articles like Rosa Parks, Isaac Newton, Mahatma Gandhi where the bio box is used. There are hundreds of bio articles that feature this biobox and as mentioned, the info in it gives the viewer a quick glance into who the subject is. --speedoflight | talk to me 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply back. You will find that there's an info biobox of some kind for a lot of bio articles, particularly concerning important figureheads like presidents, kings. Even Princess Diana has the bio box. Check out Bill Clinton for example on the template for presidents. --speedoflight | talk to me 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the Germany issue. But I will tell you this, looking at it from an objective standpoint and from that given to me by a couple of people who have reviewed the Bach article...it does not help the user understand very quickly as to where the composer was born or died. You have to dig and dig through the article and still not quickly get the idea of where he was born or died. This is not true with some other articles like Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, Princess Diana where you very quickly get a sense of who that person is by where they were born and when they were born, etc. The infobox really helps a user get a quick glimpse of that person. IMO, the Bach article needs copy editing and re-writing. --speedoflight | talk to me 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point about national boundaries in a pre-20th century era. As such, it's probably good to leave the country out. However, I think the infobox does become very useful to obtain a glimpse of the subject. I am not a Bach expert and can't help you much on re-writing of the article. I can however, can you from the perspective of someone who doesn't know Bach well that when I went there, it was hard for me to figure out where he was born or died, etc. One may argue that birth/death places may not be all that a subject is about but it quickly gives you a bearing of the person. It also adds an element of interest to the person because there are many people who traveled far and died in another country from where they were born. Princess Diana being of one such example. I think it's OK to have a rough article and then continue to refine it. I contributed heavily to the Rosa Parks article and at first, it was rough and after much polishing, it got to where it is. The one thing you might want to add in more for the Bach article is referencing (APA and Harvard style). It really helps to validate that what is displayed is factual. My pet peeve about Wikipedia articles is that there's not enough referencing done on articles. As you know, this is very important when people want to use Wikipedia as a research reference. We did a ton of referencing for the Rosa Parks article and as a result of the quality of the article, it got displayed as a Featured Article in December 2005. Let me know how I can help with the Bach article. --speedoflight | talk to me 23:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: referencing. Technically, any borrowed thought/idea, phrase or language that is borrowed from any other source needs to be referenced so that it's not considered as plagiarism. I've also found that referencing also helps ensure that people are not adding in hearsay, etc. I'd be glad to help with copy edits, referencing, etc. if you need help. Maybe when the article is cleaned up, it can be suggested as a Featured Article (FA). I know that the latest FA articles have a lot of references. Regarding "German". I think you are very right about being careful about national boundaries. I think that "German composer and organist" does help someone formulate an idea of who he was. Are you specifically interested only in Bach or are you also looking at other composers, i.e. Chopin, Mozart, etc.

WikiProject Neuroscience

Tony: You helped us out a lot when cerebellum was nominated for FA status. I'm trying to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neuroscience to improve the quality of neuro-related articles. I realize you're not a neuroscientist, but I feel that having someone who isn't a specialist over there would benefit us greatly. I trust (and like) your editing style, so I was hoping you'd join us where you can. What do you say? 05:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally understand the real-life commitments. I'll give you a holler when we may need some help. Good luck with the grant apps! Semiconscious · talk 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao

So Antonio what do you know about Australian architecture? - Seriously I know very little in spite of an article I am half working on, but if ever a page needed assistance from you it's this one [3] a little gentle guidance would not come amiss, before they spend too much time on the wrong track - and in your own back yard too (so to speak to). Regards Giano | talk 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Oh yes and I see that foul bio box has a reference here - why don't you vote to get rid of it here [4]. Giano | talk 22:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian architectural styles guidance

Hi further to your comments at Talk:Australian architectural styles, I have had a bit of a go at the intro. Any guidance, particularly on article organisation and scope would be much appreciated. Regards--A Y Arktos 21:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESTRICTED ACTIVITY ON WP UNTIL EARLY MARCH

For the next seven weeks, I'll be able to visit WP only on a restricted basis because of work commitments. After the grant-application deadline on 3 March, I'll probably be able to undertake larger chunks of editing. Tony 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Bach's apartment in the Thomasschule.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bach's apartment in the Thomasschule.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. David Newton 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question about copyright term, the date of demolition of the building means that it likely is out of copyright, but it is not guaranteed to be. The key questions:

When was it taken (obviously in 1902 or before)?
Who was it taken by?
When did the person who took the photograph die?
When was it first published?

If it was published before 1923 in the United States then it is public domain there. If the author died over 70 years ago and the photograph was published in their lifetime it is public domain in most of the world (but not necessarily the United States). If the author died less than 70 years ago then it is still in copyright in those countries that have a term of copyright of life of the author plus 70 years. If the author died over 70 years ago and the photograph was first published after they died then it is potentially still in copyright in most places. To get a definitive answer to the copyright question we need to know the answers to these questions.

BTW it's usual on Wikipedia to sign and date your posts using ~~~~ at the end of the post. David Newton 18:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epaminondas

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that Epaminondas has been thoroughly copy-edited by another user. I hope this will address your concerns. --Robth^Talk 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help with copyediting

Hey Tony,

I noticed that you're good at copyediting, and I was wondering if would be able to help us out with the Kerala article. It's up for FA, and as mentioned on that page, "a light copyedit is needed". So, would you be able to help? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Thanks anyways though! --Khoikhoi 09:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bach and Germany

I think you are right to raise the issue, although I am not sure whether I like having "Germany" in there or not. It makes things clearer to the casual, uninformed reader about where Bach was from, but it also may not be accurate. For example, the Hanseatic League gives me pause about this matter, because Lübeck proudly proclaimed its semi-independence through the 1800s. I don't know, really; I'd rather ask a German historian. But it's good to consider. It looks like the anonymous user has brought up the issue on the talk page now. -Sesquialtera II 03:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bach To do list/Naming

Hi Tony I though I would help out the Bach article by getting some fo the sub (daughter) articles out of the way. Currently there is a redlink to the JS Bach (works for harpsichord) and JS Bach (works for organ). Should these be combined into a single JS Bach (works for keyboard) with links to individual compositions of note? Also, I have started to sort out the mess of individual articles on the more notable keyboard works and a single nomenclature style is absent. I have used as follows: Composition Name (BW #(s)), but it may be better to rename them to something like JS Bach - Composition - BWV, or Composition Name - BWV (JS BACH). Any thoughts? The naming style should ideally apply across all works. (I apologise if there is a standardisation of which I am unfamiliar). Eusebeus 06:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful!

I am not sure whether you were using a script or doing it manually, but in your edit you broke one ref/note and three ilinks (containing dates).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tippett

Hi, Tony. Yes. Tippett definitely wrote some masterpieces (I particularly love the Triple Concerto, the fifth String Quartet and the slow movements of his 2nd and 3rd Symphonies). If I have time I'll lend a hand with the article. By the way, it appears the Messiaen article was promoted to featured status today. There are still a few improvements I'd like to button down, but I was quite thrilled with some of the positive feedback on the article. Now that the urgency brought on by its FAC (which I hadn't expected) has passed, I will be gradually looking at improving it further over the next couple of months. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Horn FAC

Hi Tony, I believe I've addressed all your comments regarding the Cape Horn FAC. Since you're still object, I was wondering if you have any further comments? — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spelling

yes i realize there are places outside the U.S.A. what i did not realize was that they spelt things diffrently. Now i do know that and i will not do it again. Jakken 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article advice

Ok, you've been needling me to fix that up, so I have done what I can. I don't have quite the grammar guru skills you do, so if you could have a go at it or let me know what it needs, I would appreciate it. - Taxman ^Talk 15:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FMP

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project by signing up on the status page. What you'd do is sign up for one (or more) of eight categories, such as the discography or lead section. No more than once a month, you'd be given an article which is getting close to being ready for WP:FAC, and is only deficient in a few categories. You'd do what you can in your section (and, of course, anything else you like). If a couple of people specialize in each category, we should be able to take some concrete steps towards improvement on a wide range of articles. In addition, you can sign up as a "shepherd" to take articles that meet all the criteria through a peer review and (hopefully) successful candidacy. Tuf-Kat 04:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frog FAC

Well, I hope you'll forgive my gnashing my teeth at contributors who write a long critique of something when it would have been much quicker for them to fix the problem. And then someone else has to go and put in some more work to actually fix it. Agonising. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony! Thanks for your help on frog. Do you still oppose? Here's the link if you want to amend your vote: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Frog. Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Well Antonio! I bet you never make an edit again without checking the history file. I see the funny side, I hope you do too - Case of laugh or cry really - just imagine commenting like that, and then finding the rattlesnake was in the cave. Never mind ;-( Giano | talk 11:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push creditability too far! I'll see how far I can push my luck - here goes - Your first edits to Bishonen were noted. They were very rude you know. I know you will say she was rude first - but you can't blame people, on that occasion, for thinking the worst. You've been big and admitted one mistake, go one step further and try and make your peace with her. Please? Giano | talk 12:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peace?

Hello, Tony. Your tone of rough contempt towards me is admittedly disconcerting, it's something almost like a physical shock, and I would indeed like to be free of it. I accept your apology and won't refer to past differences again. In return, I'm sorry I warned you against violating the 3RR a while back, in a case where I was personally involved (in the sense of being friends with sunshine, that I see plying his trade above). Indeed I never meant to threaten you with a block by myself, that was a misunderstanding on your part — I meant that another admin would be likely to block you — but being an admin, I'd have done better not to speak of such things at all.
Without any illusions about your sentiments, as you should have none about mine, I suggest we keep future interaction to a minimum. In fact I suggest a deal: I won't bother to bleat if you don't bother to comment on any article of mine on FAC. There's a seed for a FAC in my sandbox right now, that I was just deciding to leave there because I didn't choose to have you comment on my work. Please believe me that I don't ask this because I'm worried you might prevent it getting featured; I'm not. As conceited as it may sound, I've never had any trouble getting my self-noms featured, in fact I can't offhand recall any opposition to them, though I dare say there must have been. It's just that it would be unpleasant to me — I suppose I feel very personally about my writing, like perhaps everybody does. (And, yes, when I'm sole author of an article, which tends to happen at a certain stage of its development, I do have a sense that it's "mine", I admit it. Once other people have started to contribute I don't, though!) I hope you may see the justice of this request. Bishonen | ノート 15:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]