User talk:Ohconfucius/archive10

[[File:Pig USDA01c0116.jpg|width= 45px|link=Piggies|alt=pigs}}

To keep all discussions coherent, I will reply on the same page where messages are left for me. If I left you a message on your talk page, you may reply there.
Please click here to leave me a message on this talk page.
Thanks for stopping by.

Archives

Home page

My talk page

My userboxes

My awards

My contributions

Automation

DYK

Music

Spamwatch

3:45 AM, Friday November 22, 2024

This user is a native of Hong Kong.

This user is a citizen of the United Kingdom.

This user lives in France.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 10 months and 22 days.

Another styletip ...

Current

Generally avoid using current and currently. Situations change over time. Instead, use date- and time-specific text:

Avoid: "She is the current leader of ..."

Instead: "As of 2011, she is the leader of ..."

stub tags

Hi Ohconfucius -

please don't add stub tags to files and images like File:Lnyfs.jpg and File:Cathouse.jpg (as you did as User:Date delinker). Only articles should be labelled as stubs - other files (templates, categories, images, etc) never are. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

noted. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinker

How about adding  s to dates, as well as delinking and tweaking the month-date order, so they aren't split by linebreaks?
—WWoods (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that to the wishlist if the author of the script I'm using. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

OhConfucious, no barnstar from me this time, but I thought, given this, you might enjoy this outburst. Props. Eusebeus (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'll keep an eye on WP:ANI and WP:WQA then. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francosphere

Ah yes, I do the vast majority of my edits to French related articles. I've been alternating roughly between Marquis de Lafayette, Louvre, and Pied-noir. The former two I'm hoping to be able to get to FA, eventually. I am active on the French wiki, although at a much lower pace than here (generally: translation, asking our French colleagues to weigh in on article progress here, and building interwiki links).

I must say: we are always looking for people over at WP:FRANCE; I've been trying to revive the project for a few months. So, if you have any interest, consider this an invitation to join in. Also, we're getting some good momentum/collaboration at the Lafayette article right now; feel free to join in there.

I generally do not get involved in bureaucratic processes such as this; however, I am interested in the outcome here. Perhaps Tony is on to something; then again, perhaps not. If run correctly, it will be interesting to see the outcome! Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks so much for stopping by. I've, in a rather verbose manner (apologies), replied to you on the talk page. Please, do carry on with more points/criticism/improvements. Yours, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen it. I'm headed for some shut-eye now. Catch you around! Ohconfucius (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an humorous aside: Lafayette's full name uses all but 4 of the letter in the French alphabet. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latymer Upper School

Thanks for removing that useless link. If you were looking for compromise, perhaps 1620s in England might have been a better olive branch to offer <grin>. Maybe we need articles that cover a few decades either side of a given date? I wonder if they could be generated by the software - a kind of multiple transclusion? Regards --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reorganisation of 10 August (French Revolution)

replied on my talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnie

		The Original Barnstar
		For incredible contributions to Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, the Barnstar is awarded to Ohconfucius . --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Oh, this is like 'payment in advance', as I had hardly done anything! I'll have to put some serious effort in! Ohconfucius (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Sturgeon

Regarding my recent addition(now moved to Ocean park Hong Kong page - sorry for that edit!) But following essential information. Is it still essential to include that 5 of the fish were given as a gift for attraction purposes? Hope you can see my reasoning. thanks --CorrectlyContentious 08:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in the information. The reason most of the text was moved was because I felt it has a much greater relevance to Ocean Park, and has relatively little to do with the subject per se. The way I see it, as far as the Chinese sturgeon article is concerned, the gift is perhaps of not great importance to the preservation efforts of the sturgeon, or to the evolutionary or biological description compared with other animals. It is well known that China gives 'leaseholds' of pandas (aka Panda diplomacy); although China has not so far been equally generous universally with sturgeon, the gift of sturgeon was an important gesture on the part of the Chinese government, and the govt have said as much. Chinese believe in symbolism, so I feel the symbolic importance of the five fish, representing the Olympic rings, is certainly there; the gift may also important because of the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty. I do not believe the 5 (number) fish is important for the "attraction value", though. Hope that answers your question. See you around! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re User:Date delinker

Just a quick note - I was wondering if you could try to avoid boilerplate edit summaries when using this account? As you'll see from the two that just popped up on my watchlist, [1] and [2], the edit summary is inaccurate in both cases. I have no problem with automated or semi-automated edits, but as I'm sure you know this is the sort of thing that gets blood-pressures rising at WP:ANI when mistakes are made ;) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 12:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing attention to the problem, Boilerplate edit summaries are indeed the norm for these types of edits, because having to tailor each summary defeats the whole purpose of the semi-automated edits. I see what you mean by the 'inccurate' or even potentially misleading summaries for those examples you gave. Of course, the principal objective was to to what was stated in the summary, however, there may be little to do in some cases, and in others, AWB will kick in and perform some of its own tidying (such as spellcheck) and other general fixes. The best I can do is to consider carefully how to make the summaries more accurate. Thanks for your understanding. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It does add extra time to the operation, but the point of AWB etc is to take the tedium and effort out of making repetitive cleanup-type edits, not necessarily to do them quickly (that's a side benefit). Suggestions should still be manually checked before saving, which I don't doubt that you do, so it wouldn't take that much extra effort to delete the inapplicable section of the edit summary or to add "+ sp" or something to the end. It's not a huge deal though, and I certainly appreciate your work in doing this sort of valuable article maintenance. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 15:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I've requested arbitration over this date delinking situation and the conduct of those involved. You are named as a party. Please see here. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And...

So now anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Where have you gotten to be so blatantly heavyhanded? I will review for you your fault on this topic. You are using a bot to back up your opinion, right? You are incorrect in how you apply Wikipedia guidelines; I see little other possible actions to stop you other than attempting to have you censured or seek to have more remedial measures taken. Leadingonward (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dated delinking RfA

Just to let you know - there seems to be a mistaken impression at this RfA (at least by some arbs) that User:date Delinker is a bot, so they're complaining it's not authorised. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chris. I shall make a suitable reply to the Arbcom request. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinker

Just to clarify: Is every edit edit made using that account the result of you manually pressing the save button of AWB without using something such as an auto clicker? BJ^Talk 15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative, until you posted the link, I had never heard of auto clicker. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets the BAG seal of approval: Not a Bot™. BJ^Talk 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change to your RFAR statement so my bot could parse it, I hope you don't mind. BJ^Talk 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get the formatting right Ohconfucius (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HD DVD

If you'd like to run the script again but making it consistent for North American date formats, I would have no objection. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn;t see it. I thought there were a preponderance of dmy dates. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming we're going by WP:ENGVAR, and the first dates added to the article were of the MDY variety. Plus it keeps it consistent with Blu-ray Disc, the other next gen optical disc format. Oh, and thank you for fixing it up. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

de nada. My comprehension of dates-and-ENGVAR never got that far, but I don't think it got any consensus whatsoever. I confess to finding it too bothersome to check history on the larger articles so I usually go by nationality if there is one, or preponderant date formats. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought there was more. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know about it already? You mean more than what I posted to you? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Before you told me about the previous Rfar, I wondered if there was more. When you posted to me, I was satisfied. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was most satisfied when I found it too - Locke led me straight to it! Ohconfucius (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The following temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking;

Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ohconfucius. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh dear. I was just dropping by to congratulate you on your efforts through Date_delinker, when I came across this trouble that you are having with that work. So I will redouble my support as you tirelessly rid articles of needless links to irrelevant dates. I hope you and others (and I) can keep it up. Earthlyreason (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a protocol question

hello Ohconfucius - i'm watching the date-delinking ArbCom pages with considerable bafflement, and am feeling very unsure whether i can/should add anything to it. i don't feel i have any statement to make that would deserve its own section, and since i've never observed an ArbCom proceeding before i don't know if brief "i agree/disagree" type comments from onlookers have any weight. i don't want to stay silent if an "i agree/disagree" could make any difference but i don't want to add mere clutter, you know? thanks for any pointers on what the Done Thing is ... Sssoul (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this whole thing is a new experience to me too. However, the proponent's case is so filled with tendentiousness, spin and very selective use of facts and has now (surprise, surprise) descended into a personal attack centred in Tony that I sincerely hope ArbCom is regretting ever taking on this case. To counter that spin, what we need is hard evidence of disruption, and breaches of WP:CIVIL, or other abuses of power by admins. I think if you have any relevant facts such as diffs of what behaviour you found offensive or disruptive, you may post them to the Arbcom case. Alternatively, you may let me know to include them in my evidence. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Ohconfucius - i will ponder that and let you know if i find something pertinent. Sssoul (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

don't know if these efforts (on 24-25 November) to disrupt the announcement of the "simpler" RFC are worth mentioning: [3], [4], [5], [6], and following. the correct way to make those changes in the RFC announcement was to change them in the template itself on the MOSNUM page, which the people involved in this little skirmish figured out at some point; that's why the bot is making some of the changes (it's picking up edits to the template on the MOSNUM page). mighty petty stuff, but ... well, there it is. Sssoul (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I need to think about how to work that in. I'll find something. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a new question

okay, now someone on the "evidence" page has made a statement about Lightmouse that i consider wildly inaccurate, unfair, etc - would it be appropriate for me to add an "evidence" statement with difs from Lightmouse's talkpage illustrating that he is *very* responsive and courteous in dealing with questions/glitches about his bot and script? there are so many examples of that that it's hard to pinpoint the "best" ones - just a quick random search of his archives coughed up these: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] if you think it's appropriate i'd be glad to add those myself - Lightmouse's courtesy and responsiveness in spite of the steady attacks are the main reason i got "involved" in the date brouhaha at all (injustice bothers me). i'm just not sure it's appropriate for me to add "counter-evidence" to that page. let me know what you think ... thanks Sssoul (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to defend myself. Feel free to add a counter argument on my behalf. I am confused as to why ad hominem matters at all. I thought the arbitration was simply a search for a 'high court' ruling about whether/how date delinking is permitted. Lightmouse (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for responding, Lightmouse - i went ahead and added my statement. i too am totally baffled by this whole thing. Sssoul (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grave error by ArbCpm, IMHO. They said they wanted to check out behavioural issues stemming from the date delinking hooha, so this is exactly what they're getting -more of the same that's it's quite disgraceful. The shooting from behind Locke's and Tennis' trench is getting more intense if anything, not less. anyone who has ever dared to cross their paths is fair game. I don't think they have ever cared who gets caught in their crossfire, or how much damage is caught. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there should be plenty of time to reply to the "evidence". ArbCom cases typically go on for one-two months, sometimes longer. (see Category: Wikipedia Arbitration cases) Ohconfucius (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dmy and Template:Mdy

Hello. Can you hold off adding Template:Dmy and Template:Mdy to any articles until there is a very, very clear and broad consensus to do so? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it involves literally every single article we have, and it would therefore be a very big change, requiring an equally strong consensus. Not to mention the arbitration case that's going on right now that's very much related to this. There's an injunction about the linking and delinking of dates, and I think it would be fair not to add the template anywhere, either, while the injunction is in place. --Conti|✉ 14:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you have visited the template article and the discussion which started on WP:MOSNUM and which has now moved on to User talk:Lightmouse. On a point of information, I have visited maybe 10,000 articles and put dates into a uniform format as appropriate, be it mdy or dmy. I am merely going back on the articles already visited and tagging them to reflect the work I have done. The templates are completely invisible, and serve only to inform other editors what format an article's dates should be. In that sense, they are akin to the html comments, but simpler to insert than typing , so would appreciate you detailing your concerns in this regard. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read User talk:Lightmouse, yes. My main concern about this is simple: Doing this would theortically affect every single article we have, and therefore requires a greater consensus than a few people on a user's talk page saying that it's a good idea (And, again, I'm not saying it's not). Additionally, no action should be taken while there is an arbitration case going on that is directly related to this.

I have a few practical concerns, too. First of all, the template is not invisible to the editors, and right now it's actually the first thing that is seen when editing an article. I'd suggest to move the template to the end of the article, at the very least. A hidden category could be used instead, too. And since this affects every article, it might make sense to ask the developers to implement a software solution for this instead (which also would require a broad consensus from the community first). --Conti|✉ 11:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points you raised. On a point of information, I had started the discussion onWP:MOSNUM, but adjourned it back to Lightmouse to get more technical input before taking it back to MOSNUM with a workable plan. I thought that as I was using AWB, it would be less effort doing the delinking and tagging at the same time. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good plan. :) I was just advising against any further addition of the templates to articles for now, that's all. Getting the technical details worked out and then asking the community for opinions sounds like a good idea to me. --Conti|✉ 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your concern. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying DIV

Could you please remove the <div style="position: fixed; left:1; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; "> tag from around the "Just say no!" image on your userpage? It's really irritating to have a floating image block a substantial portion of the content on the page, and it really just looks like a popup ad. Thanks. --UC_Bill (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology

I very much appreciate it, especially since I hadn't asked for it, and there are no hard feelings at all. I hope those of you who care this deeply about the date de-linking issue are able to reach a satisfactory conclusion and can soon put this dispute behind you. All the best, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely owe you an apology. It has not ceased to amaze me how the very small matter of a pair of square brackets can lead to such great stress, mistrust, acrimony. I was no doubt being wound up by all the surrounding activity. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover

You probably would find it very interesting that Tony1 and I have almost no crossover on Wikipedia. Before someone came to ANI asking about mediation for dates, I didn't even know we had a date linking policy. Also, while alot of my evidence at the RFAR is on Tony1, that is primarily the public evidence I can present. I am still waiting for permission to present privacy related evidence that will go in an entirely different direction on a different person and make Tony's alleged incivility look rather minor. Also you might look at [16]. You won't believe me of course, but I do actually believe both sides have been wrong in this situation and both sides need to be addressed by arbcom. MBisanz ^talk 07:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am prepared to take your word for it. Any observer with a modicum of objectivity will see that there is intransigence on both sides, which have been responsible for pushing the boundary of acceptable behaviour to the limits. As an involved party, I am also very much caught in the tide of things, and I have also done things which I have apologised for. It was just that when I saw, all of a sudden, a whole bunch of diffs which spanned some time, I thought maybe you had gone to some effort. Perhaps it's not all that difficult, seeing Tony's a rather straight-talking Aussie, and the main protagonist (principally) and his 'faction' (sometimes) have been extremely annoying and provocative, and have not hesitated escalating the intensity of the battle. The Arbcom page is just so ugly already - objects will still be flying through the air for another month or two. Oh, happiness ;-) In a few weeks, when the pot-throwing has slowed, I will be summarising on all the parties' evidence. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I wonder which side will say I am pushing my POV of what date delinking should be with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:MBisanz? I'm betting on both sides. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well worth a bet each way. Compared to the ones already there, yours is straight to the point. The language is clear, the questions do not rely on subjective interpretation of a bunch of palaver, and are likely to mirror the actual style of ArbCom resolutions. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I said you were responsible for that distortion of the record. It is possible that MBisanz believed you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm mystified. Your remark was a swipe at me and him. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sigh. Another falsehood, possibly two; but thanks for leaving them off my talk page. If you can find something to do that actually helps the encyclopedia more than all these snits about encyclopedia-wide consistency in date formats, please do so. This may require actual research and actual writing, but that's what we're here for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I saw your attack on him from out of the blue and I just wanted clarification because I was actually tempted to put these on the 'evidence' page. I agree with you about building an encyclopaedia, and that this affair has been escalated beyond all proportion. But hey, ArbCom decided to keep the wound bleeding... Ohconfucius (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful...

Ohconfucious, with this edit you wiped all the comments from AN that had been posted in the meantime. It is obvious that you followed the link from Tony's page and then edited AN, ignoring the red banner about "You are editing an old version of this page". Please make sure that you are editing the current version of the page, especially on a high traffic noticeboard. If you have any questions, please leave them on my talkpage. Regards, Woody (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI, I have tweaked the messages you posted earlier this evening, as the individual in question has (by their own admission) not actually retired. Please note that I have kept the spirit of your edits and have not made any connection between the three accounts. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tags were placed there per instructions of how to tag disused accounts. I did no more than to follow this instruction. Thanks for removing the ambiguity. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thank you, I've been noticing

Hi Ohconfucius, I've not been as active lately as I would have liked (I picked up a new client IRL this week, and have been a little busy with that). I wanted you to know, however, that I've still been watching the edits you've been doing on Lafayette; they're all good. So, even though I've not been as active as in the past, I still want to thank you for your contributions. I will be back to heavily editing shortly, I'm sure :) Anyway, keep up the great work on that article. It seems Pohick has "Lady in Waiting" on order; this should help us to finally resolve the mistress issue. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the note. Its Chinese New Year, so I'll be doing other things for a few days. Catch you around! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mandy"?

Hi there. On the RfARB on date delinking you mention some "Mandy". I think I can guess who it is, but it gives a clique feeling to the whole thing when some editors refers to other than user names. We are not all part of all discussions here, so many cannot guess the hidden meanings. Cheers.--HJensen, talk 10:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Fayette/Lafayette

Confucius: I just went thru the whole LF article, doing some editing, and must go thru it again for certain details that I need to check beforehand. Bonne année du *Ox*! Frania W. (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci de me tenir au courant. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in quotes

It appears that a few times you've removed "th" or equivlaent from dates which are verbatim quotes - these should be left in their original form. David Underdown (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see which articles you were referring to. Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Hitch, Francis Newton Parsons amongst others, though I am yet to go through all VC recipients. There are a substantial number here. Some of your scripted edits were made inside a quote box, this should not happen, can you make sure it does not in the future? Regards, Woody (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually little I can do if I do not see the citation marks. However, I am going through your list of VC recipients and have been inserting non-breaking spaces to protect those which are susceptible to change. As a percentage, this does not seem to be very great - so far, I have found citations/quotations exist in maybe 1 in three or four cases. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to "There is actually little I can do if I do not see the citation marks," there is something you can do: look harder. I don't know a single normal editor who knows to put non-breaking spaces in dates within quotations, nor should they have to know. Those editors who choose to spend their time delinking dates and changing their format should look at what they are doing to check that they are not altering the accuracy of the text. If they do not check, then they will be reverted.

I appreciate your effort in going through the Victoria Cross recipients articles to shield them from incompetent de-linkers, I really do, and I have seen your Herculean efforts through my watchlist. I don't think you can go through all 2 million articles though to check for quotation marks. Yet it should not be up to editors to shield articles from bots and scripts: it is up to the owners of those scripts to ensure that they are not affecting the accuracy of an article. The format of a date is a stylistic issue which should always take the back-seat when compared to an accuracy issue. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate for your comment. No, it would be totally impractical to do what I have done to 2 million articles, just as it would be to delink or unify formats in same number of articles with neither script nor bot. However, there are, as it appears with the VC articles, groups or categories of articles which are more susceptible of having dates within quotations. So my approach is thus targeted. If one were to merely delink dates, the problem you commented on would not occur, it is the act of aligning all date formats which poses the problem. I will continue to try my best, and I hope you will see my efforts as a demonstration of sincerity and in the spirit of cooperation. cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Yes, thanks. That's a thorough and helpful piece of work and makes our point very clearly. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, he mad it so easy by supplying the evidence (where to look). I just clicked on a few 'next edit' buttons. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now extremely concerned that he may be repressing his anger, which may lead to severe problems down the line. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates according to nationality and Achewood

After this edit [17] - The dates are being changed to fit the U.S.-preferred month-first format as per the MOS. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy of notifying. Seems to be my bad, although looking at the article, it is not immediately obvious that the subject is US. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal

It may interesting to see what the other side has to say about date linking. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx. I'll be watching that space. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TVCC

Hi, please check Talk:Beijing Television Cultural Center fire#On second thought. Arilang ^talk 04:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:ArbCom proposal

You may wish to peruse the text and consider whether or not to support. I believe that a continuation is in no one's interests. Tony (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left my comment. Thanks, now there are two piggies on my talk page - one which is going to market, and one which is staying at home :-) Ohconfucius (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squeal squeal squeeeeeal, oink, grunt grunt. Tony (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Rambling Man

I don't think it is as bad as it seems, he is actually in a place without Internet access, although that notice does worry me. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know he's looking at the turtles. It was the austerity of his message which bothered me, too. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked User:Dweller about it. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuqest

Hello Ohconfucius. I was wondering if you knew any Wikipedians who were good with surveys/stats who could help out at the date linking RfC? I liked you suggestion and I'd like to discuss things with a few knowledgeable people. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as this is of wider interest, I have posted my reply here on your new page. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of birth/death in lead

The way I read WP:MOSBIO we should give the full dates in the lead when known, you seem to have reduced this just to years in a couple of recent edits, Am I misunderstanding? David Underdown (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When all this information is already in infoboxes and in the biography proper (in many of the cases), I thought it would look neater and less cluttered. It was done in ignorance of that guideline you just drew my attention to. I shall stop stripping these down. Apologies, Ohconfucius (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TTC building article

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For keeping the beijing cultural center fire article up to date and spending the time necessasry to bring it up to develop the article more fully :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note swapping

Your like the hypocrisy of this one, I stumbled upon it (didn't even realise the guy was an admin at first!). Not often we get such a clear violation like this, the only bit that really matters is the link in my post at the top, the rest is just all the typical bullshit. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's (mostly) happenings Ohconfucius (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Edit_warring_by_User:Tennis_expert

Hello Ohconfucius. The table linked above takes you well over the 100 diff limit for presenting evidence. We do give some leeway, but you've got far too many diffs. As I've done with everyone else who is over the limit, I'm giving you 24 hours to cut the diffs down to 100. Might I suggest you put the table in your userspace and link to it on the main evidence page? That's common practice when you have more diffs/words than the limit. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting for that axe to fall. The tree has been duly pruned, per instructions. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queries about deletion requests

You speedy-delete-tagged these pages:
as "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. It needs to be deleted to merge histories, reverse a redirect, or perform other non-controversial technical tasks".

Please, in detail, what task is to be done to each of those pages?
- Likewise with any other pages which you have tagged in this way, as listed in Special:Contributions/Ohconfucius. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article which resides at 2008 attack at Beijing Drum Tower during Olympics is, if nobody opposes, to be moved to 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings. The problem with the article is that is has been moved approximately 18 times. There has been no content merge into that article at all AFAIK, so nothing probably needs to be done as regards histories etc. I do not therefore imagine the various edit histories need merging. I have had varying success in moving over redirects (don't fully understand why some attempts work and others fail), so I do not know whether the final move needs admin assistance, so voilà, thanks for your assistance. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the redirects to September 11 attacks, I do not know these articles, but I would guess that the sub-pages would all have had content which was merged to the main article, so histories could do with restoring. Most of the remainder are probably just redirects placed by various editors, and may or may not require histories restored, at your discretion. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging redirects as db-house

Please take all redirect deletion requests to WP:RFD. db-house is not supposed to be used for this sort of thing. --- RockMFR 05:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok Ohconfucius (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]