User talk:Tony1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
What they say about the Signpost

At the Signpost, reader feedback is taken seriously as a way of improving the quality of our news service to the English Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia movement. We value readers' continuing support and welcome critical comments. Here is a list of the remarks over the past 18 months that we've found most useful (diffs available on request):

IMPORTANT NOTICE—WHERE TO UPLOAD YOUR FILES: This user strongly encourages editors to upload image, video, and sound files onto the English Wikipedia, and not onto Commons, which has multiple structural and management issues, and a tangle of serious inter-jurisdictional problems. Your files are safer at the English Wikipedia.
The Signpost
9 April 2014

Real-life workload: 1.5

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

  • Watchlisters: user page and talk page watchlisted by 371 editors (April 2014)
  • Estimated yearly hits as of May 2012 on my userspace (by extrapolating from the new-look traffic stats page, adjusted upwards for the six days of counter outage, 25–31 December 2011):
    • Total (yearly hits, est.): 51,608
    • User talk page: 15,127
    • User page: 9,103
    • User contribs: 6,334 (now that's spooky)
    • Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing: 4,760
    • How to improve your writing: 3,231
    • Advanced editing exercises: 2,670 (renovating now: damn, it needs cleaning up)
    • Beginners' guide to the manual of style: 2,344 (desperately needs updating)
    • The six other tutorial pages: each less than 2,000.

What they say about Tony1

Being a reformer on the English Wikipedia and further afield in the Wikimedia movement brings me into contact with many people who have vested interests in resisting change. I am truly grateful for their advice, which has been important to my ongoing program of self-improvement. Here is a list of some of most helpful comments from March 2013 to March 2014—all rigorously fact-checked to exclude mistruths and exaggerations (diffs available on request):

Another styletip ...

Italics for emphasis

Italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences; boldface is normally not used for this purpose. Generally, the more highlighting, the less effective it is.

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

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Centralized discussion
  • An RfC on the capitalization of bird names.
  • An RfC about whether or not the opt-in requirement should be removed from the enwiki edit counter.
  • A proposal to reimplement the Main Page with an alternative framework.
  • An RfC regarding changing the username policy to allow role accounts.
  • A discussion on ways to improve the "Today's featured article requests" system.

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mobile soft device may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The cost for a mobile operator to reach new customers, or to distribute physical mobile phones and SIM cards, is usually high. As the MSD is typically distributed over app stores at virtually no

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ohconfucius as I have had to mention you in my outline. Thanks. GnGn (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

MOS cleanup bot - DMY or MDY?

I have just noticed that your cleanup bot rearranges the date style (e.g., 1 March 2014 to March 1, 2014). Now, while I have no particular argument with either style, I would not that your corrections are counter to the template used to generate them. My edit was for William Brinkley and I cited a newspaper article. The cite tool automatically gave me the DMY format. But your bot rearranges it to MDY. Have you ever tried to reconcile this? It seems a waste of somebody's time ... Verne Equinox (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for checking and raising this. But I'm not sure what you mean. Is it that the url citation markup used there only takes dmy? I'd be very surprised, and no one has ever mentioned this before. If that were the case, I'd have to ask: why? I'm presuming that a US-related subject is best with consistent (US) date formats throughout. BTW, it's just a script, manually operated, usually with manual tweaks to each edit. Tony (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Tony. I noticed this as well, and I can't recall dates being done in this format before. For instance, The Who and Abbey Road are at GA status, with plans to take the latter to featured article status over the summer, and have over a million hits a year, yet neither have citations in this format (although, to be fair, both use book sources with the {{sfn}} template extensively, so it's harder to notice). If dates were done in your format regularly, I'm sure somebody would have already run a script through them. The only possibility is that both of these articles are about British bands and use British English, where "day, month, year" is how dates are written, unlike US English. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Doubly confused. I try to harmonise all dates to the prevailing one in the article, according to US-related or UK, etc – related theme, as required by MOS. What I not infrequently find is US-related articles with correct date formatting in the main text, but day-month-year formats in the citations. Shouldn't they changed to month-day-year? Tony (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I think they should, but it's not particularly well enforced. Hammond organ (should use US English) uses "day month year" consistently, but I don't think GA reviews check that, while Jimi Hendrix (a fairly recent FA) uses mostly "month day, year" with some exceptions. MOS:CITE gives a single example for "accessdate", in British English format. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:I don't see anything wrong with the date formats in The Who or Abbey Road. What am I missing? What problems do you perceive? -- Ohc ¡digame! 10:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is one, now I've looked at this closely. I've consistently done "year month day" for all citations I've added everywhere, which is the top entry in the table under MOS:DATEFORMAT. The only other relevant part of the MOS I can see is WP:STRONGNAT which advises "month day, year" when there are "strong ties to a particular English-speaking country". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Only US subjects routinely employ "month day, year" dates. All other English-speaking nations, with the possible exception of Canada, use "day month year" – that's how we deem their usage to be. Although in practice, there are pockets of dmy usage in the US and pockets of mdy usage outside of it (both inside and outside of Wikipedia). Our reviewers generally lend greater importance to consistency of formats than what the formats themselves are – and that's how it really ought to be. I don't know why the tool defaults to dmy. I guess the developers wanted a format that's easy to parse, but it's only a small detail. In another 2 or 3 years, we'll be able to let a bot loose to make those alignments which are only doable at present by semi-automated means. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand. I was (perhaps willfully) ignorant of the different style for different geography policy. The article was of a US subject, ergo the change. Thanks, everyone; this little question seems to have generated quite a bit of discussion. I'm impressed!Verne Equinox (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Hello Tony,

Thank you for the feedback and for fixing the formatting issues in my article.

I'm used to the ease of Facebook and the dashboard of Wordpress, but I will do my best to get used to sandboxes and new sections in place of drafts and reply/send buttons.

I'm here to add to the obscure musicians section. I'll start with the musicians from the segregated south. I'm interested in the papers that alerted the community that these travelling musicians were in town, the schools that educated them, the important venues on the chitlin circut, the movers and shakers of a nebulous world of black America. Too many people that were there are dying and the memories will die with them. Ritchie's helping me and a fascinating man who runs a blog called Sir Shambles.

I'm happy to input content and do the research, but I'm not really a techie. If you don't mind looking in now and then on my new articles, I'd appreciate help with the structure/formatting side of things.

Thank you, RhondaRhondamerrick (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Rhonda, yes I'll do that; can you alert me here when you have a new one, or a new few? Tony (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons License