User talk:Tony1/Archive01

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 4 August 2005 and 14 October 2005.

Post replies to the User_talk:Tony1, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

Welcome!

Hello, and

to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also
  Wikipedia:Topical index
  .

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get

.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 The current date and time is 25 May 2024 T 03:25 UTC.

P.S. I like messages :-P

Robert Gilbert The science of Robert Gilbert

Hi Tony. I see you've started at rewrite of this article. Thank you. However, in the interests of article stability, I'd like to revert the article to your Revision as of 18:24, 1 August. General practice for users' conducting major rewrites of articles is to do so in a temporary sub-page. There are two options for sub-pages: you can create a sub-page of the article concerned, or you can create a sub-page in your user-space. Sub-pages are not accessed by our readers (unless they go looking for them). In article space these pages are usually called "/temp" and in user-space they are typically entitled either "/sandbox", "/draft" or "/scratch pad". If you wish, I can transfer the "work in progress" article to

]

It appears you've retired for the night. Consequently, I have unilaterally moved your last version of the article to

Talk 16:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

From e-mail

Thanks for that; is it possible to append a flag to the main article, as a courtesy; otherwise, there might be two efforts in parallel. Tony

Technically, yes. However, there exists no notice for this purpose and it seems that prevailing mood on Wikipedia is against placing editor-related notices in articles. I don’t share this view, but some say it tarnishes Wikipedia’s image as an encyclopaedia by displaying “behind-the-scenes” work. The only template I can think of that serves a related function is {{

Template talk:Inuse

for other varieties), which an editor places on the article whilst editing. This just advise others' not to try and edit whilst you are, and thus, prevents edit conflicts. I've added a link to the ABC talk page so that others can access it, but perhaps you might like to post a comment notifying people of the page, and perhaps request they partake.

As for staying logged-in, the only thing I can recommend is checking the "Remember me" box next time you log in. So long as you don't delete/clear your cookies, Wikipedia should keep you logged-on. When I edit from university, I don't use "remember me" and sometimes get logged-out. I don't know why this happens, but it is annoying and I can understand your frustration.

Thanks, --

Talk 09:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, will do later tonight. What about one of those <!-- comments --> as a warning at the top of the ABC edit box? Tony 10:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. --

Talk 10:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

The only thing I can suggest is hit "save" again. I think its just a bug in the wiki-software that causes that to happen. It has happened to me before, as well. If after saving again you are returned to preview, open a new edit box and transfer your changes to it and save. In any case, you have a back-up in Word. Good luck, --

Talk 07:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

ABC Rewrite

Why can't the article be edited in place? The wiki is a system specifically devised so that people can collaboratively work on articles in place. To fiddle with this and set up a new system where the article is to be edited away from where it is should normally be expeced to be found seems to be against this principle.

The re-write shold be done in place because:

• It is not necessarily obvious to a casual visitor that they should navigate to a new position to edit the page
• It is not possible to monitor the changes being using the difference engine
• It is totally unnecessary - the page can already easily be edited in place.
• Any new article will have to be accepted - it is safer to make the changes incrementally so that they can be reviewed by comparison to the previous version as is the normal practise

--Wm 22:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wm. The reason I created a temporary sub-page for Tony was because his rewrite was leaving the article, as viewed by our readers, in a ghastly state (refer Revision as of 23:51, 4 August 2005). It was not appropriate, in my view, to leave the article with notices such as "WORK IN PROGRESS.." placed randomly throughout. To rectify this, I created a temporary sub-page in which Tony could go about the (much needed) rewrite at his own pace. This is not an uncommon thing on Wikipedia. Users wanting to make major edits to an article, but not wishing to expose the often messy process to our readers, will create a sub-page in the user-space or of the article. This is why you will often see "temp" or "rewrite" sub-pages of articles, and "sandbox", "drafts", "lab" or "scratch-pad" in user-space.

The use of a sub-page by no means excludes editors from editing the actual article. It is the responsibility of anyone using a sub-page for a rewrite to incorporate any changes made to the article. I have changed the html comment that Tony placed in the article to reflect this. I have also posted a brief explanation on the article's talk page.

I don't believe any wiki-principles (which you seem to strongly support) are being compromised. And, as mentioned, this is not unusual. Ideally, it would be nice to have editors make changes to an article incrementally without need for a sub-page. Hopefully, however, you understand why it was necessary in this case. If you have any further concerns, please let me know. Thanks, --

Talk 09:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Emailing

Well did it stop timing out on you? Anyways, with a lot of us try leaving a message on our User talk page. If we take too long to respond, THEN email. Thanks, Redwolf24 02:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, am I overereacting or is Jiong theying to sneakly insert an anti-immigration POV, the references added are either nonspecific or misrepresented? Your opinion on the talk page would be appreciated. Also, thanks for you comments on the Womens project, I probably won't get it up and running anytime soon, but I'll let you know when I do. Til then I'll work on the economy article along with my many other unfinished projects.--

]

Canberra

Hi, while you were away I decided to work on

]

Tasmanian Devil article

You're welcome. I found the article while looking for instances of the word "goverment" in wikipedia. Your message motivated me to take a closer look at the article, and its talk page had a question I could at least comment on. That was an interesting coincidence.

]

To answer your question, the above article was suggested earlier to be merged to the main

]

Does my response on the FAC page of the article answers your objections? Is there anything else I can do to gain your vote of support for the article? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

]

Nice photo

• Tiss' better to see who you are talking to... File:Eyes.gif File:Eyes.gif Scott 00:40:27, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Hello, Tony1. Thanks for your support for my FAC nomination of the Lutosławski article. I am grateful for your interest. I see you are a professional editor so I welcome your input, and criticise your contribution with some trepidation, but I think you introduced factual inaccuracy and an Easter Egg link into the introduction as well as effectively deleting some implicit information. Lutosławski does not ask for any improvisation from individual instrumentalists; he did not leave any doubt over how any of his compositions is to be realised. The Easter-egg link arose when you hid People's Republic of Poland under Poland; this also deleted implicit information - the sentence was trying to make clear that the Stalinist Poland mentioned is not exactly modern Poland (there's even a separate article for it) - I've made this more explicit. His solistic works (song cycles and concertos) were the ones written for renowned musicians, you're right that it wasn't phrased clearly enough before. Finally I didn't understand what was wrong with toe the line: you certainly don't adhere to a line; again I've recast this sentence. Overall I think your edit has led to an improvement, thanks. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive copyediting of Hubble Deep Field! It really helped the article a lot. I have followed up with a few further revisions to some parts, hopefully to clarify more points - please do get the red pen out again if you think the text needs any more work. Worldtraveller 15:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact a real brain, Tony.—Encephalon | ^ζ  11:23:50, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Beautiful edits, Tony.[1] Thanks!—Encephalon | ^ζ  05:29:34, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! Have you seen the

]

You didn't get it wrong: you just missed a bit! :-) As for sound: sorry, I've not uploaded any myself. Find an ogg file and look at its history, see who uploaded it and ask them? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you get a chance could you take a look at

]

Lutosławski

Thanks, Tony, yes it's quite gratifying. I do not see bestowing featured article status as the end of the line - you go ahead and improve the article as you see fit. If you can get a short sound sample of one of his later works without infringing copyright I'm all in favour! What about Naxos? I'm going to be taking a wiki-break; when I get access to a digital camera I shall take some photos of a few pages of full score and upload them if I am convinced that it's fair use. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've carried out the requested tasks on

]

Thunderball FAC

Thanks for your evaluation of Thunderball. If you have time, any editing you can do to increase the quality of the article would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time thus far. K1Bond007 01:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

There is an unwritten rule maintained on FAC that anything that can survive the deletion process has the potential to become a featured article. I tend to agree with you that some pop culture items are vaguely idiotic and I wouldn't spend my time on them, however many contributors write about what they like rather than what is important encyclopedic content. Take a look at this

]

imac

Thanks for your comments. I don't have too much knowledge about the imac, but I'll critique it anyways. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Critiqued! =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I got your note. Thanks for your work on it, it looks great. I just tweaked some of the language (very minor), trying to preserve non-American English ;) I'm also glad you love your iMac, once you've used Mac OS X, you really can't go anywhere else!! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your wishes. I need some of my articles copyedited once in a while, and since you do have long experience in this department, may I message you once in a while? I'll be submitting Bhutan to FAC today, and if you see any minor errors in the text, please feel free to correct it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your wonderful copyedit to the Bhutan article. Makes it much better. I had linked gelid to wikitionary so that a reader might at least click it. Is your post on FAC a comment or neutral vote? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I just saw your comments on the Nepal talk page. I can turn my arm over for the Nepal page too, but I lack copyediting skills. Would you be amenable to copyediting Nepal if I clean it up? I hope I'm not dragging you away from your other WP tasks? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I can get *lots* of images. Try this site: [2] and search under cc-by- and cc-by-sa. I can also make the maps, and user:Captain Blood generates the terrain maps. So all that's left is the copyediting and the IPA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Would you like some comments here: Wikipedia:Vocabulary levels? It's on the levels of vocabulary that can be used in wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I looked over the article and did some more corrections. Could you see if there are anymore problems? Thanks. Pentawing 22:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I have attempted addressed your concerns for the rest of the article, but I need a second look. Pentawing 17:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks, given that it was almost a "one-man operation" (aside from a few people including yourself, no one else helped). Pentawing 01:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I responded on my talk page to your query about the music of Nigeria article. (I prefer keeping discussion in one place instead of fragmenting it.) I hope my suggestions might prove useful. BrianSmithson 22:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your nasty comment at the end wasn't needed, but the rest were quite helpful notes. I fixed what you mentioned, please let me know what else you see. Staxringold 01:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to give offence, Stax; it was a bit naughty of me. Although my final statement was a slight exaggeration, I stand by it in principle. I'd remove mention of the school motto, frankly; the school should reword it, because the sexual overtones are inescapable in modern English. The problem is that the whole article needs serious rewriting. Can you find someone to go through it? What about one of the English staff at the school who's good at editing—surely they have an interest in it? Tony 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh, we should probably keep this to the FAC page. I posted there. Staxringold 01:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't change straight to curly quotes, it only changes &#…; and &…; (and %xx) into literal Unicode characters. Which article are you referrring to? If you want a particular article to be processed by the bot in the near future, just leave me a note. -- Curps 18:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does it still have any grammar problems? Zach (Sound Off) 02:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just a heads-up - I've responded to and addressed your objections over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spoo/archive1. Thanks for your time! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me just say, (as ALoan noted), the article is so much better, thanks to you and Scott's criticism. Ideally, all the issues that I was oblivious to should have been taken care of in Peer Review, but as has been noted elsewhere on FAC, there is a decided lack of editors on PR that can assist an article's growth, let alone actual professionals such as yourself. Your two detailed critiques to which I have replied in detail have been especially instrumental in the article's development at this late stage.

To say the least, I am not the best writer in the world, but in true wiki fassion the article has been improved considerably thanks to quite a few users, especially yourself, for which I am endlessly greatful. I truly believe the article, as it now stands, is worthy of FA-hood. No matter whether or not you support it, I extend my genuine thanks. --

Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Just saw your edits to Spoo, By the way. Much appreciated! -Jeff

You wrote:

Jeffrey, in that case, I'm wondering why you didn't enlist editorial support before nominating it.

The thing is, I did. Before I put it on FAC, I had (what I thought was) a pretty extensive

Shazaam! - <*> 04:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Tony, it's crunch time for me over at the Spoo FAC. I have further tweaked the prose per Scott's latest suggestion; coupled with your recent edits and my adjustment of the pictures, can I look forward to a change in vote? No matter what you decide, thanks again. --

]

Hello - I've already replied to and fixed the stuff mentioned in your last comment - I've just moved it up towards the middle of the nomination page so that all your comments were in one spot. --

]

Happiness

I've edited it slightly and added the reference to that figure. Thanks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:37, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

---

I hope you don't mind, the 'unique' award. (I'm in a rather funny mood today. :) )=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:22, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Glad you like it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:46, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, many thanks for pointing out improvements needed to this article. It's rather easy to get familiar with a subject, and not realise that the shorthand is unclear to others, though those also familiar with the topic may simply find it uncomfortable rather that seeing the cause of the problem. Clarifications are in progress, it'll be a great help if you can point out anything I've left obscure in sections that have been revised.

Next, sexual selection. I've read the extract you copied, and tried with limited success to go through the linked article. Since I'm comfortable with the idea of non-intuitive or obscure mechanisms in natural selection it's a little hard to see what the fuss is about, but it is an important mechanism. Obviously organisms that don't reproduce sexually can still evolve through natural selection, and sexual selection must have an advantage for survival of offspring that offsets any disadvantage of features, and at least must be neutral. I've added to the intro to "Orchids, Variation, Descent of Man and Worms " to try to clarify this area for the casual reader. Hope this is coming together better now, ...dave souza 01:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rewrite, the criteria are more easy to follow now. --

]

Well done! Easy to follow and will help nominators address objections raised on the article length rather than being defensive. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:53, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - I meant to thank you myself. I thought your redraft of

WP:NPOV

looked quite relevant.

Thanks for your comments too. The footnote on length was there to forestall objections to excellent short articles, because it has been a long-standing tradition that short articles can be featured articles if they meet all of the other criteria, but I guess it is implicit in "appropriate length". On references, there is still a matter of debate as to when a fact needs a reference and when it does not. The is a clear consensus that article needs some references, and that controversial or surprising facts need an inline citation, but there is clearly a degree of latitute and scope for personal preferences. But then many of the other criteria are subjective, and I'm not sure that the criteria can do more than give the current concise summary of the position and a reference to

Wikipedia:Cite sources.. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, this was related, so I figured I'd put it in this section. on the S-mine FAC entry, the nominator mentioned you edited down the lead section. It was too long, but you made it too short. I commented on that there, but thought I should comment to you directly. - Taxman ^Talk 21:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the paragraph that migrated downwards, someone else did that. It was logical, I thought, and created an opportunity to insert a few sentences at the top about the issues I raised on the nomination page. Tony 01:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Christmas Oratorio excerpt.ogg needs a copyright tag, since I would assume it's copyrighted by the performers -- add {{fairuse}} to the image page to tag it as fair use, which should be acceptable since its only an except. Looks like you added it to the article just fine, though I think it looks kind of weird to have it in the lead like that. Is there a section in the body of the article where it would be appropriate? Tuf-Kat 17:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what are you trying to do at [3]. Thanks. Zach (Sound Off) 23:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add your photo here:

]

Belarus again

This edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belarus&diff=23322692&oldid=23318650, it is correct. Zach (Sound Off) 03:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Belarus is not an FA yet. I believe the only thing standing in the way is your objection vote. What the others said that if you support the article, they will too. Zach (Sound Off) 18:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, it was removed and it probably failed. But personally, I think the grammar should be fixed, since I had several folks go through the article and see what is wrong with it still. Zach (Sound Off) 18:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good. I think there should be something about the Intel chips. Also, the article is pretty technical. On one hand, yes, it's a computer article. On the other, you may want to make it a bit more user freindly. Also, the headings for the different models are long; it is currently: 4.1 iMac (Tray Loading) (aka iMac G3) 4.2 iMac (Slot Loading) (aka iMac G3) 4.3 iMac (Flat Panel) (aka The New iMac in production, iMac G4 after discontinuation) 4.4 iMac G5

Perhaps it should be: 4.1 Tray Loading iMac G3 4.2 Slot Loading iMac G3 4.3 iMac G4 <people know it as the G4, you can call it "The New iMac" in the paragraph> 4.4 iMac G5

I also think that you should put the Apple Computer (not the fruit--be careful!) sidebar (I'm not sure exactly what those things are called) . I've only seen it on the [Apple Computer|Apple]] page, but I think it should be on all of the associated pages. It looks like this (edit the page for the code):

Apple Computer, Inc.

Company type	Public ( USD ($2.1B FY 2004)
Number of employees	13,426 (2004)
Website	www.apple.com

Keep at it; it's coming along. Tell me what you think about popularizing the sidebar. HereToHelp 22:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above text has been cut and pasted from my page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've almost finished with Nepal. I will be starting to copyedit the article as it has a few gramatical errors. If you could take a look it would be great. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lead looks much neater. No problems. Summarising the history from various texts was taxing. Some of the earlier text still remains, I didn't modify it as yet. WP: I hope the situation changes soon with the purchase of new servers and a mirror in Korea. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. About referencing, yeah I know. That's one of the last things I do before I nominate any article. I store it locally so it doesn't get in the way of copyediting. All references are currently dumped under the ==reference== section.
2. I don't know anyone from the university, but there are two (though long inactive) Nepalese wikipedians, I'll try and email them.
3. BC/ BCE – I'm not complaining, I don't have strong feelings on the issue.
4. Nepali and Nepalese are both correct, though the problem with Nepali is that it also refers to the ethniticy as well as a language.
5. No, I haven't been to Nepal, though I've been close: Sikkim.
6. ...since 1996, throughout large.... and ...of the country, early in 2005 the king... don't seem to flow well.
   • Thanks for helping out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you download this image:

• http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/graphics/photos/apr01/k9388-14.htm

The URL has a link to a high res image. It would be better to get the highres image to wikipedia. The image can depict terraced farming. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Nepal page for images. Is it now better? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the upload. I take it that you may not be knowing about the Wikimedia commons. The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository for free images, music, sound & video clips used in pages of any Wikimedia project. Unlike images uploaded on other projects, images on Commons can be embedded on pages of all Wikimedia projects. In other words, it is better to upload an image (*free image* only) in commons: rather than in the en: wiki. Let me share my secret in obtaining free images:

1. . Search in commons. eg for Nepal search for: Nepal as well as category:Nepal (the category is more important)
2. Search in flickr: creative commons. By and By-sa are allowed in WP.
3. Use google image search. Nepal OR Nepalese OR Nepali site:.gov

Voilà! and there are your images to upload. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you get a chance and haven't already could you give the conservation section of the fauna article a once over, I think I'm ready for the onslaught of FAC.--

]

I'm guessing that you're asking about the licencing things people have on their user pages :) They're completely unnecessary unless you want to also licence your contributions under a creative commons licence or release them into the public domain. Otherwise everything on Wikipedia is licenced under the GFDL.--

nixie 10:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Commonwealth can get the chop in this article. I'll probably put it up on friday after I wirte some more stube for the red links. Your quite a popular proof reader these days :), so thanks for taking the time. --

nixie 23:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Style section

I don't have a problem with you rewriting it, I just put up a quick little good-for-now sort of thing. Yeah, feel free to completely change any of it. --Berserk798 19:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for going over the article. I didn't realise that somebody else had commented, the watchlist obviously wasn't working. I have taken aboard a lot of the points and I've redone the article a little. --Grcampbell 21:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I haven't had the pleasure of talking to you yet, but I've decided to introduce myself here, since I have a request for you, in case you want to help me. I've just placed a request for Peer Review for the Texas Ranger Division article, since I've been working on it for several weeks with the intention of nominating it for FA, and you'd be doing me a BIG favor if you took the time to review it. Since English is not my first language, as I re-read it I always get the feeling that something is missing or said incorrectly, no matter the amount of effort I put in it. I see that your constructive and serious criticism at the Featured article candidates has helped the improvement of several articles to FA status, and I could really use your help... pleeeaaase? Thanks in advance, and *hugs*, Shauri Yes babe? 22:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I simply wanted to drop by and thank you personally for the effort and interest you're putting in my request. I owe you, Tony, and thx again Shauri Yes babe? 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the article now reads simply that US 66 is (I will probably change it to "was" to be more precise) a highway. There was an objection about "famous" so I removed it altogether. "Storied" in this sense, means "talked-about", it's something you hear a lot in this part of the US, but I removed it anyway.

As for the title, the article was originally "Route 66", but it had been changed to fit in with the rest of the US highway articles. Also, "Route 66" is a generic term and could apply to Interstate Route 66, Arizona Route 66, etc. In addition, it was the name of a TV show, a song, etc. and many of these also have articles. There is much discussion about this at

]

I removed the dots throughout the article, except the title, the inital line, and for links. Personally, I'm for removing them, too. But, I hadn't seen them nor worried about them. Highways are often described as US 66 for a federal highway, and postal codes for state routes (example, MO 66 = Missouri highway 66). This is becoming something of a convention. Rt66lt 00:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the other highways have articles this way.

]

OK. Pity, you could go out on a limb, and see if they complain, but I understand. It's becoming old-fashioned to retain the dots. Tony 00:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go.--Rmky87 03:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Is it all right that it's a subcat of NSW?

Robert Gilbert

Hi, Tony, yes I'm back: real world time pressures still present though, unfortunately. Your idea about swapping the images is a good one, I agree whole heartedly. I noticed you've uploaded a page of Symphony No. 3: the discussion of it adds a lot to the article. Any chance the image could be cleaned up a bit? - it's a bit grey. I'll probably make one or two tweaks to the article over the next day or two: there's no hurry. Regards. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I have a much better version of the 3rd symphony page 50 image. Email me, (and let me know on my talk page you've done so - I don't routinely check that email address), and I'll email the image to you in return. It's 1824 x 2524, less than 500 kb. I'll let you into the secret of how I did it: I used a scanner! I would rather you uploaded the new version than me, please, because you have already cogently asserted the fair use rationale, and if I upload it I'll have to go through all that again. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed by return. Best. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - I see the new one. Your browser or proxy has probably cached the old one. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those figs are PPP. I've sourced them from the CIA factbook. I managed to get feedback from a Nepalese wikipedian. And did he give a lengthy review! :) Its all on the Nepal talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reorganized American popular music, giving it a tighter focus. In doing so, it has become significantly smaller. I would appreciate any additional comments you might have at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American popular music. Thanks, Tuf-Kat 02:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I appreciate your good intentions and the urgency that made you expand the instructions. But I do think it's bloat to add specifics on one aspect of one of the (many) criteria, right next to the link to the criteria themselves. Nominators need to either make very sure to click on that link, or else several other specially important points need to be mentioned up front (which I'm against, as creating more bloat). I'm pretty sure lack of references, for instance, is as frequent a problem as lack of copyediting. Perhaps you might edit the criteria page further instead (I see you already did), to emphasize the need for copyediting? Though I also stand by my remark about it looking condescending to tell everybody to go get somebody else to copyedit before nominating. Wouldn't you agree that there are articles that are good to go directly from the hands of the author/s/..?
My overriding concern is that the instructions be kept simple and practical. Following Bishonen's Law, they will naturally tend to be always growing, as people add their own special concerns over time, while hardly anybody ever removes anything. I know Raul654 agrees with me in general, in fact it's Raul's ruthless pruning that has kept the FAC instructions so nice and simple compared to those of Peer Review. It wasn't very long since you made the additions, so it's possible that no one complained because no one noticed yet; the longer the instructions are, the more cursorily they'll probably be read, that's the problem.
I've also helped raise the standards of prose on WP:FAC, both before and after articles are nominated. For instance, some teenagers have caught a habit of asking my help on IRC ("Bish, u r a grammar nazi, will u proofread my FAC?" :-) No, I haven't heard more of those pleas since you made your changes). I've authored a number of FAs myself, see e. g. The Country Wife and its vote if you're interested. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 08:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Nepal on FAC. Thanks for editing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move my post to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, I'd rather you didn't include the final paragraph. I only mentioned my own credentials there in case you were interested in where I'm coming from, they're less relevant on the more public discussion page for FAC. I've no wish to boast of my own FACs etc., or sound as if I think they make me more qualified to edit the instructions. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark—So the image should go, or can the use be justified?

I wish for a nice, clear tutorial on image copyright, with a trouble-shooting section, a how-to section, and a checklist for contributors. I guess there isn't one, is there?

'Time-space' and 'time-memory': should be n dashes, because there's a vector involved?

Thx Tony 01:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image should probably go. The image isn't particularly well-known, and it doesn't qualify for any of the specialized "fair use" tags such as {{

bookcover

}}, so any claim of "fair use" is borderline.

Except for situations that are explicitly written into law (what is and is not copyrighted, when copyrights expire, and similar things), copyright law is rather messy. "Fair use" is mostly a matter of precedents set by courts, so the only way to tell for sure that something is or is not "fair use" is to run it through the courts, which means getting sued by the copyright holder. The best we can do at Wikipedia is to maximize the odds in our favor. --Carnildo 06:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your generous help,

]

Nepal images

Say yes! Don't give up an opportunity to get more images on any subject. We have ample space, and good images are always welcome. We can always upload them into wikimedia commons. Those images can be used by another wikiproject or on another Nepal-related topic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well they aren't really spectacular (and some of images have bad urls), but are welcome as they can illustrate mustard fields etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yipee, Nepal's featured. Thanks for the cpedit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review is closed, but I was wondering if you could look over the article and point out any other problems. I talked to Earth about the article, and he said that he couldn't find anything wrong with it (though I am unsure about that claim). Thanks. Pentawing 20:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found one citation, with the rest coming soon as I find them. Academic reputation and research is used as the yardstick for the rankings, but there is little else mentioned (I am still looking). As for the first sentence, I am unsure how to properly correct this (I can't simply use University of Michigan since there are two other campuses that are part of the UM system. The one in Ann Arbor is the flagship campus). If you have a suggestion, I'll be open to it. Pentawing 03:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked another user (a fellow Ann Arborite) to look at the article and he has done some significant changes. Could you look over the article and comment on it? Thanks. Pentawing 01:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tony. Sorry, that was an edit you made to the Luto talk page while I was "away" for a while, and I missed it - it fell off the bottom of my watch list! I've read it now: I like your recasting of the intro. My only query is that while the influence of Bartok is entirely obvious, that of Stravinsky and Prokofiev is less so, and they should all be discussed in the main article before being added to the intro, and referenced - do you have such a reference? I'm afraid I don't have access to my references just now. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes we discussed already on FAC. Would you mind taking another look at the article and see if it meets your standards? Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The weekend has come and gone, though, and I fear the article will soon be removed from FAC. Yours is the only object vote left. Johnleemk | Talk 13:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the helpful suggestions. How is the article now? Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I combed the article for mistakes again. How is it now? Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to have cut back your wiki habit. Thanks for dropping in to support the fauna nomination. I've written a biography and I was hoping if you get a chance you could take a look at it,

]

Fereration Fellowships, that's where the big $$ are in Australian science, I'm extremely glad that I'm not at the grant writing stage of my career yet.--

nixie 01:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this guy will look nice on the main page, but cleaning up the vandalism is going to be a nightmare. Thanks again for your assistance with the copy.--

]