Real-life workload: 2.5

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied
• 11 = Up to 11

• 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.

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

• List of WP shortcut keys

Hi, nice to meet you on article Younes Elamine. [1] ツ Hey, I don't mind the work, because I can edit an entire day just on infobox errors: parameters, converting image to bare file name, and then there is this one: Film articles using image size parameter using Template:Infobox film, which are piling up but I haven't figured out if I am to delete the size or the entire parameter. Just saying in case you were unaware. ツ Wishing you the best and happy editing, Fylbecatulous talk 14:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Fyl. I've been wondering why "solo_singer" is there at all in so many infoboxes when it doesn't even display. Apart from the weird formatting (lowercase initial at start, and then ... eeeeek ... an underscore. Very weird. Tony (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, as a member of the WikiProject I can answer this. The background format one chooses displays the colour of the infobox borders itself: [2] So Dalton Rapattoni gets a yellow and The Connells get(s) a blue. The world of infoboxes is magical. Now whether this really matters in the grand scheme of things, who knows. But any foul creates an error somewhere. Forbid the thought that a box be the wrong colour. And we can haz cheezeburgers for being among those willing to work on these type of Wikipedia quirks. Fylbecatulous talk 17:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much point in the colour-coding if our readers don't know how to decode it. Tony (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topics are capitalised in the lists because that is the way they are written in the original work. If you scroll down you will see that the script has only altered some of the topics from all caps to caps and lower case. In some cases only part of the word is blue-linked. The concluding letter is black. The result is an odd appearance on the screen. Surely the capitalisation rule mainly applies to text pages? Might there be some lee-way in their use in tables? Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Our style guides don't allow all-caps like that. By analogy, we don't use curly apostrophes, the original font, or the original font-size. Are you interested in fixing the remaining all-caps items? Tony (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, you appear to be hitting a number of articles which this newbie contributed in a biog series concerning the "Great Escape" during the Second World War and you are removing the flags which those lads fought and died for. I am aware that it's currently fashionable to disregard such "out dated" imagery, I guess its considered one of the "ist's" by the younger generation, however your change is leaving that part of these articles looking messy and rendering the purpose of the box unclear. Please can you either return the flags or find another way of representing their purpose (which was demonstrating the manner in which Arthur Nebe selected these lads for execution, in his twisted sense someway proportionate to the number and nationalities of the escapers). I am fed up with this sort of "bodging about" of articles which I have contributed, by editors who might be better spending their time actually contributing something new rather than endlessly messing with the contributions of others. I made my last addition to Wikipedia at the start of the year after another session of "bodging" by some random editor and although I had recently considered providing some more articles this session has put an end to that thought, I may still donate to the upkeep of Wiki but I'm done here. Too many "editors", not enough serious contributors. cheerio R44Researcher1944 (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing it back here from your query on my talk page - I started to contribute articles to Wikipedia because I believe deeply that these men and women made a significant contribution to our freedoms most of them at the cost of their own lives and that they deserve to be remembered, some were SOE field agents, some senior commanders, some were service personnel, others were diplomats who materially contributed to the rescue of large numbers of persecuted people. Quite quickly I noted that random “editors” were free to nominate articles for deletion because they didn’t suit the “editor’s” personal agenda and I fought successfully to retain an article which met every requirement of a notable person. I was advised by an experienced contributor that I should add articles to a Watchlist to be checked daily simply to protect valid articles from the unnecessary changes made by random "editors" who lacked understanding of the subject matter but were following their personal agendas. I contributed two articles on very similar Battle of Britain participants, receiving positive feedback from one editor only to see another editor remove chunks of the second article for being irrelevant. Both men had grown up without fathers who had died on service in the First World War, in one article that factor was acceptable and relevant but in the other it was regarded as irrelevant and removed. I struggle with the concept that as a specialist I'm contributing material which is directly pertinent to a subject which I understand but that it is later removed by somebody who lacks in-depth understanding of its significance, such as the split in nationalities which Arthur Nebe reviewed when deciding which of the Great Escapers were to be killed. These days the flags may mean little to some people but they did mean something to the men who died and they mean something to those who have served. The staggering editorial inconsistency is the problem which has prompted me to call a halt. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What can we do about these problems you've encountered, then? I'm sure there's a way. On flags, there's certainly some point in historic flags in infoboxes. But modern national flags can be just pretty baubles, and infoboxes don't exactly have a lot of space to spare on those lines (mobile viewing can cause unintended clutter, too). We put up with rafts of French/US/UK/Rusian flags in sport-related tables, wearily. Why don't you revert the ones in question and I'll edit them without removing flagicons ... Tony (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: the removal of flags on BBC Women's Footballer of the Year, WP:MOSFLAG states "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." What is your rationale for removing them from the players listed who represent their countries on national teams? This has been the standard on most all of the football articles I've seen, so was confused by your removal of the flags.Hmlarson (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, most readers won't know to hover their mouse over the icon to learn which country it stands for. Second, in that table in particular, the flags look just awful when higgledy-piggledy. Third, it says "may" be relevant. You want the flags because they look ornamental? Tony (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thought but I'm done here, in my view too many want to be "Editors" and chop stuff around for next to no reason and without sufficient knowledge - not enough seem to be interested in actually contributing anything. The flags in my articles were significant, military and actually were the reason why the individuals were picked to be murdered. I'll pick up my coat on the way out. Best of luck R44Researcher1944 (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you return. Tony (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you are making a lot of page moves from Suburb, New South Wales to Suburb, Sydney. This appears to contradict Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Suburbs. Do you have consensus for all those moves? WWGB (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never dreamt that someone in Perth would know that Birchgrove, NSW, is not just north of Armidale. Why confuse readers who are searching? The articles all seem to be rather old and untended, and not up-to-date in terms of our style guide in some respects. Tony (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you do not have consensus on this matter, it breaches the above position. I intend to revert until this matter has had a proper airing. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where the consensus was gathered, please? Tony (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown you the existing position at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Suburbs. That position is used in hundreds of articles about Sydney suburbs. Also, WP:MOVE requires that if retitling is expected to be controversial, you need to seek consensus for the name change. You did not do that but made unilateral changes. If you want to change the status quo, I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney/Suburbs. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want you to point to where the consensus was gained. Who knows who wrote in this position that you are defending. A diff. to the end-point endorsement, presumably on the talkpage, would be sufficient to judge. Tony (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies seem to be at WP:PLACEDAB and WP:NCAUST. I haven't read them yet. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was established in 2004 by former administrator Ta bu shi da yu. - Letsbefiends (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]