Hi Tony, would you mind having a look at the citation formatting on Chester Cathedral for me? For some reason in the notes, clicking the blue linked 'Nuttal', 'Home' and 'Clifton-Taylor' correctly zoom you down to the relevant section in the Bibliography; but that doesn't seem to be working for the other references. Any idea why - I've been slowly losing my sanity looking at the code and can find no differences between the two to suggest and explanation. I'm probably to close to it. I'd be very grateful if you'd cast your eyes over it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found "Starkey" works too, the first I tried as it happened. But you're right, the others don't seem to. I think it doesn't work when you insert text such as =p142 after "ref name" and before the double curly brackets. Tony (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I came this close to messaging you expressly to say that yes, I had seen it. Don't worry about overwriting my changes, they only took about 30 seconds. I shall have to go back and properly comment on your draft once Rob's checked it for factual accuracy or something. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I'll wait. I'm the acid test, coz I'm thick about computers and such processes. I'm rather demanding about explanatory text—my insecurity ... Tony (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 04:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		The Modest Barnstar is an award suitable for an editor who makes small improvements which are immensely valuable, but often go unnoticed. Thank you for taking the time to copy edit the Signpost's articles before publication, including my articles in the WikiProject Report for the past couple weeks. We need copy editors like you and it saddens me that some careless words have made you feel unappreciated. It is easy for writers to take copy editors for granted, but your work is important and deserves some praise. I hope you and phoebe patch things up because the Signpost certainly needs you. -Mabeenot (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second that, Tony, for your work there and everywhere else on WP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, I left you a reply on the talk page, as follows:

I missed your book review, I'm sorry. Sage is right: I really didn't mean any offense; I also really appreciate your copyediting. What I *did* mean is that it's really hard to get people to contribute articles on a regular basis, which is what the Signpost now and has always really needed the most help with. I want you to *have* something to copyedit! And I *want* you to add yourself to the newsroom table! I think you've got my intention all wrong: I'd love to see you as a regular contributor. I'd love to see everyone focused on writing articles (that goes for everyone who has been talking about Signpost reform lately, btw, including me), and after we've managed to put out a few issues successfully sit down and talk about how best to do so in the future (rather than the other way around). This has seemed to be the most productive method of attacking the problem to date. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, I might just add, I think this is probably a case of us both (at least me, for sure) being a bit irritable and hearing things the wrong way: you've focused on me saying you've not been helping, when in fact you've spent hours helping -- understandably irritating and a source of frustration, and not the impression *I* want to give: I really value everyone who does anything for the Signpost. On the other hand, what I've focused on is your calls for better writing and better management of the Signpost -- with the implication, of course, that the older stuff in the Signpost is not well written and not well managed, which kind of cuts to the quick for me since I've spent the last year and a half writing diligently every week for the 'post (so presumably a lot of the bad writing is mine). You see our mutual problem? I would love to have you as part of the signpost, I really would. Please write that research article you were talking about. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony, I would like to try these scripts

• The date-format harmoniser
• unlink-common-terms script

Thanks; Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 01:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for (tentatively) signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! or Diannaa ^TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! Diannaa ^TALK 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reward? I do like sipping brandy occasionally. And hampers of beautiful food! Tony (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your copy edits of the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors subpage! Very apt.  :) --Jubilee♫clipman 19:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points -

Dubai: I'm not going to revert this edit, since it's not worth edit warring over, even though I think it is wrong, and there is no basis for saying "American and European should not be linked" (who says?). I would though have taken this further if you had also reverted my restoration of the link for the Indian population - which you bizarrely took out originally, while leaving one for Pakistan. It is an infobox, about a state whose population is majority expatriate, and whose economic growth depends to a large exent on a South Asian workforce. The original version, which I restored, with minor changes to improve a couple of the links, provided links to details about where those expats are from. As ever, I fail to see what benefit is to be found by removing them, let alone edit warring over it, as you have started to do.

Australian TV: I also notice a whole series of edits to vast number of pages on obscure Australian TV series yesterday. I quickly looked at some of these, and noticed that many of them have removed links to items in the "Categories" and "See also" sections, which also of course has messed up the formatting. Now I know you think removing any link to Australia and TV programme descriptions from articles about Australian TV programmes, and also removing links to Sydney - while retaining those to Melbourne and Brisbane for example, on some arbitrary basis - is an improvement for readers. This appears to be a genuinely held belief, if a slightly odd one and one not endorsed by the actual wording of WP:OVERLINK, but surely you didn't actually mean to take out those other details as well. Or is this what you meant when you said that you often run the scripts, and then take out "more"? The fact that you are encouraging others to take on and use these scripts, which in their effects often amount to (presumably unintentional) vandalism, is somewhat worrying. Also interesting is that a day later, no one has come in to correct most of the obvious errors on those pages, which kind of suggests that silence from other editors cannot be taken to always equal consent to such changes.

I also see some disputes over Canadian names today, where, as with Dubai, you are also edit warring to remove direct links to the main Canada article, while citing "breaches" of wp:link, where it is not clear there are any such clear breaches. --N-HH talk/edits 14:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]