Two very useful links for editors: Editors' index to Wikipedia and WP:GO
![]() |
---|
14 August 2024 |
|
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.
- I don't volunteer my time to put up with pompous asses like you.
- "We won't deal with Tony1 because negotiating with terrorists is "bad", mmmmkay?"
- "You are so full of nonsense."
- "a complete jerk"
- "This user has been a thorn in our side almost from Day 1."
- "a-grade twit"
- "the black cloud of [his] presence"
- "I'm frankly outraged by the comment by Tony1."
- "if there's something more-important than Tony1's ego about, would someone please shoot it? We might be able to get on with our lives then."
- "Grow up."
- "Trashing the efforts of other volunteers"
- "horribly biased"
- "kind of creepy"
- "Crawl back under the rock you live under and die"
- "a history of harrassing editors whom he disagrees with"
- "Tony, does a day go by when you don't find fault with the sun for shining, or with lambs for gambolling in the field or with fluffy clouds for passing in the vast sky?"
- "particularly obnoxious"
- "Tony, for years you've essentially done nothing but complain about the work of others. STOP IT."
- "You have people like tony1 who come in and wish death on others and engage in active harassment of people they dislike which drives down editor retention."
- "dick"
- "I assume, since you feel qualified to decide how donors' money (including mine) should - or should not - be used, you will be standing for trustee at the earliest possible opportunity?"
- "distinctly irritating at times"
- "antisocial behaviors"
- "until after he ... comes back to a factual, accurate, and objective discussion ... no further topics should be discussed with Tony and no answer be given. "
- [DYK hooks] must be interesting to Tony, or he's going to whine and bitch about it on this talk page.
- "we should just ignore Tony1"
- "... you're not happy unless you're bitching about the others' work ..."
- "querulous blowhard"
- "his ad nauseum has been going on for years. Time to stop."
- "When, Tony1, do you intend to run for a WMF Trustee position so you can close down [the site]?
- "deliberatively provocative and unfair ..."
- "Tony's tantrum is unedifying ..."
- "I do not condone Tony's provocation, I just am choosing to ignore it ..."
- "all Tony ever does is scream. He loves to snipe at things he doesn't like ..."
- "It's deeply irritating."
- "When it comes to influencing people and making friends, I've rarely seen anyone being quite as bad at it as you."
- "Disgusting conduct"
- "actively disrupting"
- "repeated personal attacks"
- "if you bleat and whine and attack, these things happen."
- "you constantly throw unfounded negativity"
- "unpleasant"
- "His style of 'rant' and entirely uncooperative style isn't amenable in any way to improving the site."
- "he's attacking with his nonsense"
- "a dick"
- "... uniformly combative, unconstructive, and insulting. He has no evident interest in advancing our project"
- "he prefers to use bullying and insults to advance his chosen positions
- "strident and even inflammatory"
- "I will not waste time responding to Tony1's nonsense, except to say that it's total nonsense."
- "a jerk"
- "you'd rather do damage than really improve things"
- Jimbo: "tired old points" … Tony: "They're not tired; they're supported by a sizeable proportion of Wikimedians." … Jimbo: "Being supported by a lot of people doesn't make them any less tired."
- "Stuff your pompous self-righteousness up your arse"
A fresh round of invective in late June 2014, led by Scott Martin, an administrator who still enjoys the community's confidence (that includes yours) Resigned adminship and retired in August, I see now—that's good for the project. Tony (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Pretentious babble"—I didn't appear to provide the answer he wanted.
- "You wouldn't know an attack if it hit you in the backside."—Scott Martin is a crusader for our civility policy.
- "Rubbish"—Scott Martin shows skills that come in useful as an admin who deals productively with the editing community.
- "Utter codswallop" —Scott Martin has a distinctive argumentative style.
- "I didnt think my opinion of you could actually get lower"—Scott Martin
- "buzz off"—Scott Martin has the potential to be succinct, too.
- "get over yourself"—Scott Martin has a talent for aggressive, off-hand comments that belittle the recipient. This must come in very handy in his capacity as an admin dealing with the editorial community (see WP:ADMIN).
Scott Martin then trots back and forth between en.WP and the attack site [wikipediocracy.com Wikipediocracy]—the one you all support through your silence on its use by your fellow editors.
- "a complete tosspot", he starts.
- "dazzling ignorance ... or perhaps contempt", Scott Martin accuses there.
- "you're an idiot"; "What a pathetic attempt at selective quoting and paraphrasing to push your own interpretation of events."—Scott Martin accuses others on the Wikipediocracy thread who don't agree with his tirade.
- "poor little Tony"—Scott Martin on Wikipediocracy.
- "All I'm getting is a big picture of Tony's bum on the horizon."—Scott Martin moves into sexualised language on Wikipediocracy.
- "you risible, self-interested little toad"—Scott Martin's invective becomes virtuosic on Wikipediocracy.
- "Good lord, what a pretentious little fool. You can practically hear his butthole over-tightening from here."—Scott Martin's strategy catches on among others at Wikipediocracy, which is now working towards violent imagery.
- "whining ... idiocy".
- "fuck Tony1"
- "ridiculous pretention ... you can practically hear the pole squeaking. He could shave himself using a dental mirror."
- "Special Snowflake"
- "You haven't got a bloody clue."—Scott Martin comes back to ensure the tone is sustained. See below.
- "The pole is stuck in the fundament. It's been joined by his head, so much so that he can see his own head when he sticks a mirror in his mouth."—Someone at Wikipediocracy is adding violence to the sexualised insults.
- "Before I thought he was merely clueless. Now I think he is, not well."
- "utterly rephrehensible. I say that without an ounce of vitriol"—Scott Martin returns with questionable logic.
- "hissy fit ... sheer arrogance"
- "Tony1 is a far bigger asshole than he originally appeared"
- "complete bully like Tony1"
- "Tony1 is oftentimes a jerk"
You're all exposed to the risk of this kind of public assassination, despite WP:CIVILITY, WP:ADMIN, and the Foundation's terms of use. There's not a thing you'll be able to do about it. It's tempting to think that the abuse came from men who took offence at the theming of women's issues in the interview with the Foundation's new executive director; but I have no solid evidence of that.
Insults from April 2015 onwards
- "not only boring and unfunny but pretty offensive too, to be frank" – Michael Maggs, chair of WMUK
- meh – Fae, ex-chair of WMUK]
...
![]() The year ...
1995, not the year 1995,
unless the meaning would otherwise be unclear.
Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}} |
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
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Mind_the_gap1.svg/89px-Mind_the_gap1.svg.png)
No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
- Archive 1 (4 August – 14 October 2005):
- Archive 2 (15 October 2005 – 5 March 2006):
- Archive 3 (6 March – 15 June 2006):
- Archive 4 (16 June – 6 September 2006):
- Archive 5 (6 September – 29 December 2006):
- Archive 6 (30 December 2006 – 6 April 2007):
- Archive 7 (7 April – 29 July 2007):
- Archive 8 (30 July – 7 September 2007):
- Archive 9 (7 September – 16 December 2007):
- Archive 10 (17 December – 18 January 2008):
- Archive 11 (19 January – 30 March 2008):
- Archive 12 (31 March – 28 April 2008):
- Archive 13 (29 April – 7 June 2008):
- Archive 14 (7 June – 25 June 2008):
Infobox musical artist
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
The Signpost: 2 May 2016
- In the media: Wikipedia Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps
- Traffic report: Purple
- Featured content: The best ... from the past two weeks
Capitalisation of the lists of music articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia
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)
- 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)
Removal of nationality flags
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I hope you return. Tony (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
Page moves
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Can you point to where the consensus was gathered, please? Tony (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Can you point to where the consensus was gathered, please? Tony (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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)