Jump to content

User talk:Tony1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony1 (talk | contribs) at 00:46, 29 March 2021 (→‎Tirey L. Ford, Jr. Edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please support the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative!


Self-help writing tutorials:

edit

Another styletip ...


Including


Introduce a complete list with comprising, consisting of, or composed of rather than including (which would indicate that the list is incomplete):

Incorrect: The English alphabet includes 26 letters (are there more than 26?)

Correct: The English alphabet comprises 26 letters

Correct: The English alphabet is composed of 26 letters

Woeful: The English alphabet is comprised of 26 letters

Correct: The English alphabet consists of 26 letters


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

Sigma Coatings double entry

Dear Tony, Thanks for making the edits, but I'd like to ask you how I can get out of a mess I myself created :-) I have translated the Dutch article about Sigma Coatings and make 2 copies: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Coatings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sigma_Coatings Obviously the draft should be deleted and the main article should stay. How can I be sure that this happens? I have tagged the draft with a "Db-a10|Sigma Coatings" on the top. Is that enough and this site https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Coatings will remain? Thanks! PvB73 (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why don't you simply delete the draft yourself? Is it an automated system that has tagged it as a speedy deletion? If so, it's not working as it should. The Polish version at pl.WP will be unaffected by anything that happens on en.WP. Tony (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony! I think I sorted it out finally :-) PvB73 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Sinaloa Cartel-Gulf Cartel conflict you deleat the flags, why??? Why you deleat the flags??? I don't why, but if you don't inserect the flags, I will report you. So c'mon, inserect the flags NOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by D10s Maradona (talk • contribs) 07:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "inserect" means. Tony (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion please...

You started User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing on 2006-05-19. Did you know that, in 2008 and 2014, other contributors created redirects to your essay from the wikipedia namespace?

I've asked people who created redirects from the wikipedia namespace, to their essays, to consider moving the essay fully into the wikipedia namespace.

How do you feel about your essay being linked from the wikipedia namespace?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:
  1. Wikipedia:1A [1]
  2. Wikipedia:1a [2]
  3. Wikipedia:Learn to write [3]
Cheers!
No problem: they go to the named page. Tony (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of infobox parameters

Why were the infobox parameters removed in this edit? Alansohn (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed my mistake. Apologies. Also, {{subst:DNAU|Ohconfucius}}, is there a fix for this? Tony (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not guilty, m'lud. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage point

If you think that 44% - 40 % is not 4%, please, consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Percentage_point to see the reasons for the modification you just reverted. Please, reconsider your revert. Looking fwd your reply. 88.101.38.41 (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at your arguments. None of them changes the ambiguity. The risk will rise from 18% to 28%: is the "10%" increase 10% of 18% (1.8 points) or 10% of 100 (10 points)? This is why, for example, electoral margins are expressed as, for example, a 4-point lead (52–48), or a 2-point swing (from 49% to 51%). Tony (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Capitalization of company name

This edit changed a company name to all lower case. Is this a bug in the script or is this something that needed to be corrected manually. Alansohn (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: Thanks for picking this up, Alan. This function in the script needs a re-think as to whether it can be constrained to the usual comma-separated occupations and roles (or disabled). In the meantime I'll keep an eye on this problem. @Ohconfucius:

Special:WantedTemplates

Hi, I have been helping with an effort to clear up false-positives in Special:WantedTemplates and found that 9 of the entries can be traced back to User:Tony1/monobook.js. For example, if you check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Dts-simple\, you will see that the server is reporting that User:Tony1/monobook.js is transcluding that template. Clearly this is a quirk in how the backend software parses javascript pages, but it makes it harder to find the real problem pages. It would be great if you could put 

// <syntaxhighlight lang=javascript>

at the top of the script page and 

// </syntaxhighlight>

at the bottom of the script page. Since these are commented out, it won't break the javascript, but it will prevent the backend software from parsing the {{dts-simple\| as a template transclusion. Alternatively, if you are no longer using monobook, I can have the page deleted for you (most editors are using vector these days). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, @Plasticspork:. What would we do without you? Most of your message is way above my head, but I'm pinging @Ohconfucius:, who developed and maintains the composite script I use. I'll add those two commented-out lines. As for vector, I know nothing—perhaps it would make the script run more smoothly. Tony (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit on Lights Up

Hello Tony1, apologies for this random message. I noticed that you did some copy-editing on the article which I really appreciate. I just want to reach out and ask a few questions since the article is currently through a peer review. Did you remove the wiki-links on guitars, piano, and keyboards because these are commonly used terms and therefore shouldn't be linked? Also, for this edit, I changed "Lights Up" back to "it" since the previous line already uses the song's title, so that could make it repetitive. Hope that's okay with you. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, common terms shouldn't be linked. "It" is OK. Tony (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Hello can you help me with a draft that I want to get acceptable for an article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Devoe Syent713 (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brownhills

Per info: [4] -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, Chris. Tony (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

"Dry -hole clause" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dry -hole clause. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 4#Dry -hole clause until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello Tony1, I hope you are doing well. I imagine you use bots to clean up articles, and I just made a bot-like edit at DVT to clean up what I think is garbage, which I explained here. There was some on-wiki presence/input from a representative of this company on a bot talk page, and somehow approval was granted to spam citations with unhelpful links to their website as I understand it. Perhaps if you have the time or inclination you'll lead an effort to rid the wiki of such nonsense or perhaps you'll decide my opinion is unwarranted. Anyhow, it's something I think is worthy of attention and perhaps you could sniff around if you feel up to it? Best wishes! Biosthmors (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Biosthmors – are you interested in getting a bot to do that kind of thing? User:Ohconfucius developed and maintains the bot(s) I use, so you might talk to him? Tony (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would be interested in that! However, there probably needs to be a consensus that develops somewhere before I can ask for that to happen. It appears that there was a micro-consensus that developed somewhere to allow it to happen that I think was inappropriate. At this moment, I don't feel like I have the time or energy to identify that historical micro-consensus and attempt to reverse it, unfortunately. Biosthmors (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would you propose, in an RfC, with the main justifications? Tony (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A request for bot task is probably the simplest way to go. Make a request, and there will be an ensuing discussion to hone the consensus. Once that's done, someone will think of an approach to removing the offending "spam". -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that advice  Ohc . To answer your question Tony, I would say that having these Semantic Scholar links (S2CIDs) in citations to scientific resources all too often violate Wikipedia principles. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links, and it is not the place for link spam. An original motivation for adding this link was stated by a representative of the organization. It is "for Wikipedia users to explore our open literature graph and find additional relevant information that they are unlikely to find elsewhere."[5] In contrast, the reason why we cite sources is to "enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources." The initial proposal I found was on github from a person with a COI. (This was identified thanks to an edit from User:Izno. The discussion thread there, at User talk:Citation bot, shows no consensus for this change in my opinion.) The initial discussion I've found on Wikipedia, which was very technical and focused on how to design the change, also originally came from an editor with a COI that represented the website. To offer a very brief glance of this parameter's current utility, I picked the first 3 S2CIDs I found in this version of pulmonary embolism. Two of those three links provide no information that would help one verify anything and are simply link spam. The other provides a link to a URL that supposedly contains the PDF (a dickyricky dot com address -- are there any security concerns with providing links that encourage others to access these PDFs?) As I understand it we are not concerned about copyright violations. So out of this sample, 2 out of the 3 links do not help readers verify the information. I propose removing the functionality of adding S2CID links via any bot that adds this parameter. To be clear, I am not yet against this parameter ever being used, I am simply against it being used indiscriminately. In my most recent attempt to improve the quality of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), I removed all Semantic Scholar links, as I saw them as being very likely useless. Out of the 1500 to 2000 visitors to DVT a day, I wonder how many actually found anything useful in terms of verification from Semantic Scholar links when about 1/2 of the references cited are freely accessible? I'd guess an average of about 0 people a day were using the links there. Websites such as Sci-Hub exist for those actually looking to get full-text versions of PDFs behind paywalls. Just because a representative of the organization claims a reader might find value there doesn't mean we should operate bots to add links there without specific rationales on a case-by-case basis. In fact, I'd support a bot request that "cleans house" by removing all S2CIDs and only allowing readditions when certain circumstances are met (such as a safe PDF being accessible there — or if a table or image from the article there actually verifies the prose it supports on Wikipedia). Pinging User:RexxS and User:WhatamIdoing, as I've also raised concerns with them as well, and typing this all out took a lot of time! Best wishes everyone. Any advice or thoughts? (I'm happy to have this tread continue on my user talk page if it becomes too disruptive for you here Tony.) Biosthmors (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That proposal could set you up for a WP:CITEVAR debate. Maybe we should have a general conversation about citation formats for medical journal articles. I've got a note somewhere (probably at WT:MEDMOS) about page numbers. The traditional citation format is to provide the full page range (most journal articles a handful of pages long, including the list of refs), but some editors think that all citations ought to ideally be reduced to a maximum of two pages. I think we've got a practical consensus for the traditional format, in the sense that it's what everyone does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here?

As per WP:RETAIN, date formats should remain as they are unless there is some good reason, such as strong national ties, to change them. Your edit here violates this. Please restore the correct formatting. --Pete (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, thanks for pointing this out. It was a mistake (six months ago), so I'll put it back to dmy now. Tony (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I then went off and checked some of your other work and you seemed to be doing the right thing, so I guessed it was something inadvertent. --Pete (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do occasionally make mistakes. Not often, I hope. Tony (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More date concerns

Hi Tony1, as per WP:CITESTYLE and MOS:DATE the YYYY-MM-DD format is welcome where brevity and clarity are important, as in citations. Please do not change this date format unless there is a good reason to do so, as per WP:RETAIN. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A hint: To ensure consistent citation template date formatting, it is easier to add a template like {{use dmy dates}} at the top of an article than to modify dates individually. In this article, for example, changing the template at the top would have been sufficient; there was no need to modify all of the dates in the citation templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is going to come along and manually fix the wrong dmy for an American musician? Quite a task without supervised automation. Tony (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear. On the next one you see, try adding only {{use mdy dates}} and then look at the results. You should see that all of the citation template dates are rendered in the mdy style, without you having to run a script or leave behind a very busy diff. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was well aware that certain parts of the script function had become "inconsequential" because the MW software automatically changes all dates, but there's generally no harm in aligning whatever dates there are irrespective of what the software does. To stop the conversion, I will need to modify the script, but I have little time to spare for now. I'll keep it in mind as the next project. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nine years since what? Tony (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Tirey L. Ford, Jr. Edits

Thank you for your recent edits on the Tirey L. Ford Jr. page. I appreciate your feedback. One question, why did you remove in the Infobox, the spouse and no. of children fields? Per Template:Infobox officeholder/example you can add this information. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg. (1) These claims were unverified (and there are strict rules about verification for bio articles). (2) Aside from that , many editors question why relatives appear so prominently (in some infoboxes, but not in most), unless they are important for understanding the topic. (3) Marriages, divorces, deaths – is it really worth exposing private matters at the top of the article? Tony (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1&oldid=1014775277"