Jump to content

User talk:Ohconfucius/archive33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flags again

[edit]

Per WP:INFOBOXFLAG do not remove ship registry flags from infoboxes of ship articles. Please revert any removals you have made.

You seem to have a vendetta against the use of flags. Your removals are against consensus, any further removals will lead to this issue being raised elsewhere. Consider this as a formal warning to cease and desist. Mjroots (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Until you start looking, you probably wouldn't know how overused flags are here on WP. I actually removed very few in my cleanup, and most of these have been reintegrated. I'm sure you accept flags that were removed in these two edits, for example, are non-compliant. regards. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first example you gave was an appropriate removal. The second example was not a removal of a national flag, and is arguable either way. Removal of flags where they are at the port of registry field or where a shipboxflag is used is not acceptable, per the link I posted above. Maybe it would be better to ask at WP level before wholesale removal. No harm can come from waiting a day or two. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaohsiung city edit

[edit]

Did you realize that you deleted a whole list of sister cities in your "General formatting" edit???Philipxd (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there, but there is no point of removing the list and adding a link to another wikipage as lists of sister cities are shown on nearly every cities on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipxd (talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of NAD 3020

[edit]

The article NAD 3020 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:NAD 3020 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of B137 -- B137 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Knife attack on Kevin Lau

[edit]

The article Knife attack on Kevin Lau you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Knife attack on Kevin Lau for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Thank you for your response at the thread there. Not that I'm saying that you were 'defending me', or that I'm thanking you for 'taking my side', as I never really intended, or saw, my bringing it up there as a 'adversarial' thing, which I tried to make clear. As the same time, as I also tried to make clear, I know that some people see ANI as the 'request for sanctions' noticeboard, not the 'incidents' noticeboard, that my addressing the issue there would create drama, and that people would question my judgement. Simply, thanks for not adding to that. Reventtalk 07:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twin cities

[edit]

Hi Ohconfucius. First of all, I would like to let you know how much I generally appreciate your efforts in tidying up so many different aspects of Wikipedia articles. I have noticed, however, that you have recently twice deleted the twin cities sections in the articles about Danish cities we have been working up to GA (Esbjerg, Odense), preferring instead a link to List of twin towns and sister cities in Denmark. (I have also noticed that you appear to dislike the frequent use of flags which often accompany the twin cities lists.) Maybe there have been decisions to proceed along these lines but I must say that I personally find the twin/sister cities sections interesting and useful in the articles themselves: interesting because they provide an immediate overview of the connections established with other cities and useful because several of the other cities often have special arrangements or hold events or exchanges with the city in question. I don't suppose many people look at the See also sections to see if there is a link to twin cities. Indeed, if they do, they may well be distracted away from the article itself and undertake an examination of what connections are enjoyed by other cities in the list. I see your talk page is followed by some 270 editors. Maybe some of them would like to comment on this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twin cities by a long way are acceptable and advisable in city articles. Dismissing them as "clutter" isn't a valid argument for deletion and looks like vandalism. Flags aren't compulsory, but twin cities do form part of the city political framework and should be mentioned in city articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until we have consensus on this, please refrain from re-deleting these sections. I am obviously not the only one to think they're important.--Ipigott (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after seeing a discussion on OC's talkpage. This discussion has occurred numerous times, usually with the result that twin cities are dropped as ephemera. Twin cities are, in my experience, a chance for local tin-god politicians to give themselves junket trips to the other city and be photographed for puff-pieces in the local press. They have no economic, social, or cultural significance. They are merely political vanity at the basest level. I strongly believe WP should not give them the time of day. Tony (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR changes

[edit]

Why are you changing the ENGVAR tags on many articles about South African topics from South African English to British English? Are you denying the "legitimacy" of SAE as a real ENGVAR? English speaking South Africans do not speak or write British English. I'm confused by these changes which IMHO are contrary to the ENGVAR rules. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dodger67:I am not aware of any substantive differences between SA English and British English as far as the vocabulary of my script is concerned. Please also note that I am not tagging any SA articles with {{use British English}} but instead am using the 'code-neutral' {{EngvarB}} tag. I'd be grateful if you would enlighten me in what way I may have deviated from WP:ENGVAR so that I may adjust the script accordingly. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question in my mind is basically "Why remove the "Use SAE" template and replace it with a less precise one?" I don't know what "code-neutral" actually means, but if it means what I think it does then both templates should be able to exist on a page together and EngvarB can be added to pages without removing "Use SAE". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This issue came up among a few Australians. AusEng differs from BrEng in the spelling of one word, as far as I can see. South African English is very much based on BrEng. Aside from some local vocabulary, the grammar and spelling are almost identical with those of BrEng. The script is concerned with spelling, in which the language is basically binary. Why complicate matters? Tony (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the spelling is basically the same among these varieties, but by aggregating all non-American Engvars together the implication is that they are a single undifferentiated mass. The question I have is why remove a significant distinction that relates to aspects such as vocabulary, idiom, etc? If EngvarB is really concerned exclusively with spelling that's perfectly ok but please don't, by removing the "Use XXX English", imply that there are absolutely no differences at all between them. Use both templates together. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just, as an experiment, added "Use SAE" to OR Tambo District Municipality so that it now has both templates - it does not seem to have caused any problems - at least as far as the associated automatic categorization is concerned. Unless it's causing some "hidden damage" somewhere, this shows that both templates can amicably cohabit on a page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject there is no reason to change the specific {{Use British English}} to the non-specific {{EngvarB}} where it has already been determined which variant to use. The former is easier to understand and follow while the latter is not clear what editors should be using. Keith D (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, changing the date style in the references is one thing, and I can accept that since it's common that scripts on Wikipedia do that. But changing the American date setup and American spelling in the article text, as you did in this edit, which I reverted, is a different matter. Do find a way to make sure that your script does not disrupt the date format in the general article text or the WP:ENGVAR of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are you on about? It's not an American film, and most of the dates (in the version you reverted to) are already in dmy. It's been in dmy and British spelling since the early days. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going "on about" what I stated above. That it isn't an American film matters, why? It's an English-language film, and the article was currently using the American date setup and American spelling for the article text; like STATicVapor stated here, changes to the date style should be discussed on the article talk page. If we are going to use the British setup for all date matters in the article, meaning more than just for the references, then we should go ahead and establish that on the article talk page. Same goes for the spelling. This is so that those matters remain consistent, and editors don't keep changing from one style to the other. Like I mentioned, the article was using the British style for the reference dates, and I kept formatting new references that way, which is a bit of a challenge for me since I'm American. But as for British spelling... I'm currently the main editor of that article, and, since I don't write in British spelling, that's something else I would have to worry about -- remembering to write in British spelling. I'm simply asking for some consistency to be established, and for us to follow it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22: STATicVapor's comment appears to be ambiguous as to what it was referring to. The article was tagged {{use dmy dates}} and my edit updated the formatting. I accept that the British spelling may not have been appropriate, it was a my bad as I clicked on the wrong script button. In any case, it's not accepted practice to have dmy dates in the reference section and mdy in the body. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STATicVapor was referring to the date changes made in the article text; I don't think that he was referring to the date changes made in the references. But he's now pinged again, here in my latest post, so that he can confirm. As for the rest, thanks for explaining; I understand. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Reverted yet again. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Flyer22: I am sorry, I was looking at that article but had forgotten there had been this here discussion. It is not accepted practice to have a mix of date formats, for example dmy in the body and mdy in the references, or vice versa. With that in mind, kindly decide which way it is to be, and change the tags or else accidental changes are unavoidable. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed the template to Template:Use mdy dates, and I will change the reference style later. But where, for example, does Wikipedia state that if the article uses British style for dates in the references, the article has to use British style for the dates that are not references and British spelling in the article? This goes back to what I stated in my "13:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)" post above. Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATEUNIFY –

  • Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:
  • the format used in the article body text,
  • an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body, or
  • the format expected in the citation style being used (however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided). -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perrelli

[edit]

I have worked to improve the Charlotte Perrelli article today. If you can find any further improvements, that would be appreciated! :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastgate Centre

[edit]

Are you sure this article is a copyvio? Most of the article text was posted in March 2006 [1] but the content on the website you named on the CSD notice is in a comment posted in February 2013. It would appear they copied off of us, not the other way around. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Roksan Xerxes

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roksan Xerxes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of B137 -- B137 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nienstedt

[edit]

Thank you for fixes, but to change things in a part commented out (which will not even stay) as in Gerd Nienstedt is extra work not needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I translate from de, I typically copy what's there (often a "huge chunck") and slowly (!) work on it. I may stop doing so because the copyvio detetor also doesn't recognize the commenting out. I only came here to save you precious time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's now on the Main page, and, yes, I kept what you did ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

[edit]

Information icon In a recent edit to the page An Post, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear OhConfucius, Thanks for your recent tidying edits to articles I have been working on, such as Gervase Elwes or Charles Bannister. I am always grateful for someone with an eagle eye for typographical details to sweep up after me, as I can be a bit casual. However, I wonder if it is really necessary or desirable for you to keep altering my spellings of (e.g.) 'recognize', etc, to 'recognise'. Mine is a perfectly correct national spelling of the word and as I am (I hope) consistent in my usage of it I would refer you to the censor remark above. With many thanks, Eebahgum (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Williams infobox

[edit]

Please explain how the embedded comedian infobox was "messing things up". If the embedding is a problem then the infobox should be changed to the comedian infobox. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed it. Someone removed a flatlist and inadvertently left brackets. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you! ;-))

[edit]
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Dear Ohconfucius ; Very many thanks for your helpful assistance (aided by these great scripts of yours!) in tidying up our encyclopedia! I particularly appreciated the improvements you applied to the article on Andy Irvine, which I have been working on for a while. Please know that your meticulous approach is much appreciated. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball national team - club nationalities

[edit]

Thank you for your remark, but there are teams who have highlighted nationalities of their players' clubs and show flag icons (teams like Ukraine, Slovenia, Serbia, Belgium, Turkey, Spain, Argentina, Croatia, Lithuania etc.). So, I would keep club nationalities of Georgian players. Dartzow (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Roksan Xerxes

[edit]

The article Roksan Xerxes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roksan Xerxes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of B137 -- B137 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subtemplates

[edit]

Please do not remove {{start date}} , {{end date}}, or other subtemplates from infoboxes, or from {{Timeline-event}}, as you did in this edit. See its documentation for why it's needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient manual review of script-assisted edit

[edit]

In this edit several hyphens that were described in the text as deliberate examples of hyphen use were changed to n dashes. Please repair. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Arshiya Lokhandwala

[edit]

Hello Ohconfucius. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arshiya Lokhandwala, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I've cut out the gallery section, which was spammy and not appropriate for the article on the person. What remains is not spam in my view. However, whilst there's enough to pass A7 notability, I'm not sure about the GNG, so it might be advisable to take this to AfD. . Thank you. GedUK  12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ged UK: check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arshiya Lokhandwala. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Simsion

[edit]

your change to use url module for website has some sort of problem. {{URL|example.com|optional display text}} faulty? Richard Bruce Bradford (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Campbell (footballer born 1995)

[edit]

As per WP:NCPDAB policy and WP:FOOTY explanation, the page title should remain as Adam Campbell (footballer, born 1995). LRD NO (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17 March transfer deadline

[edit]

Hello. What I should have done in the first place was to ask if putting a comment in the middle of the phrase would prevent the script interpreting it as something it should change. Like

...signed in the two weeks before the<!-- to separate "the" from date --> 17 March transfer deadline.

I really don't want to have to use less natural phrasing just to head off a script. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gender studies at Cat Prod

[edit]

Please, try to avoid proposing deletion for anything remotely controversial. Go to AfD instead. The PC Police already are on our case. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links; US(.)

[edit]

I have reverted your recent changes to articles on my watchlist, as in some of them you have deleted links to the West End. If you would like to redo your other changes, that will be admirable but please don't delete links to the West End, which, an American editor has told me, are needed for his compatriots who may not be familiar with the term. Regards, Tim riley talk 08:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this too, as my watchlist has lit up like a Christmas tree. It is ok to de-link "West End musical", or "West End theatre", or even "appeared in London's West End", as that explains what the West End is, but when it is by itself and could be confused with a merely geographical designation, it should be linked. Also, Confucius, you removed the dots from U.S., which is fine, but if it is at the *end of a sentence*, it needs the full stop. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra

[edit]

"ultra isn't a word..." see Ultra it is no longer an Ultra secret. -- PBS (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hey, do you think Pretty Little Liars (TV series)#International broadcasting violates MOS:FLAG#Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason and/or WP:TVINTL? Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 03:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Leigh

[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for nominating the article at FAC. I was going to do it myself eventually, but I couldn't yet as my previous nomination is still listed there. I was starting to get a bit annoyed about it lol, turns out FAC takes a lot longer than I anticipated! In the interim though, I spent a few days scouring through the 1989-1990 microforms of the Newcastle Herald in my university library's basement, and found a lot of good information to expand the article. Knowing me I probably made a dozen prose errors adding the information, but i'm happy the articles content at least is sufficient for FAC now. Did you notice the article when it was at DYK? It got over 15,000 views, which is a record for an article nominated by me. I was quite pleased about that :). Freikorp (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no kidding. 15k is pretty amazing. now that i'm cosponsor, i'm also responsible for any new faults introduced. just watch you don't put too many errors or i'll kick your butt. And mind those apostrophes. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try lol. Btw if you want either of the two offline journal articles or any of the offline newspaper articles (I have PDF's of all of them) just let me know which ones and i'll email them to you. I'm also happy to scan any section of the Who Killed Leigh Leigh book for you if you want to check anything in that as well. The only offline source I don't have access to is 'Coyle, Rebecca (2005)'. Freikorp (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished expanding the information on NC1's conviction, which was one of two issues in the article I thought were lacking in detail. The other issue is Guy Wilson's conviction and the aftermath. (According to Who Killed Leigh Leigh, Leigh's stepfather assaulted Wilson after Wilson told him Leigh's younger sister would "be next". Sometime thereafter Wilson's house was firebombed. Wilson was also sentenced to a further 6 months in prison for assaulting someone else in or around Stockton in an unrelated incident.) Anyway i'm not sure how much of that information i'll end up adding (it's a bit difficult due the timeframe of these incidents occurred not being specified), I just thought i'd let you know it's the only issue I ever intend to expand. I know you're not supposed to work on an article being nominated for FAC, but as no-one has commented on the nomination yet, I don't think my edits today present any problem. Also if you haven't looked at it already, I made a list of interesting facts I found in microfilm and online on the talk page of the article. Have a look and let me know if you think any of the information i've listed there should be integrated into the article. Freikorp (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was a lacklustre start for the nomination, but the two users who have just voiced their support is promising. Unfortunately I learnt the hard way from my first FAC nomination that two votes of support isn't enough. Generally four are required, though three can be accepted if support is unanimous. If there is anyone you can encourage to review the article, now would be the time to do it. It looks like we have about 3 weeks before this nomination will be closed, but considering that it took one month before this nomination received its first full review, i'm not filled with confidence that more people will review it unless they are encouraged to do so. Freikorp (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have four people supporting the nomination now, which is fantastic and more than enough in itself (as long as somebody else doesn't review and oppose), though as one of the closers pointed out, none of the reviewers have done a source check for accuracy and/or close paraphrasing, which is needed. Whilst asking someone to completely review the article may have been a bit daunting, now we only need to find someone to review some of the sources, which should be far less time consuming. I'll start asking around, if you know anyone who might be willing to do that feel free to ask them too. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's quite healthy. The four who have commented are all well regarded reviewers, and the progress of the review is all very encouraging. I wouldn't worry, someone like User:Nikkimaria will be around at some stage to check the sources. I wouldn't try rushing it too much, these things take their sweet time. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah you're right about it taking a while haha, though that now presents a small problem as I wasn't expecting the nomination to take this long. Heads up; i'll be on vacation with no internet access from October 22 till November 2. As the co-nominator i'll need you to either address concerns while I am gone or at least try and buy some time and prevent them from closing the nomination without promoting it until I get back. Who knows, maybe the article will get promoted before I go, but in case it isn't I just thought i'd give you plenty of notice instead of just telling you the day I leave. Freikorp (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for addressing those close-paraphrasing concerns whilst I was gone. Well, the article is at the bottom of the queue now, still awaiting a full source review but who knows if it will get it, and i'm guessing if it doesn't it won't be promoted. If you know someone who would be willing to kill an evening doing a source review now would be the time to ask, but in any case I just wanted to say thanks for your help on the article thus far. Also thought i'd let you know if it is not passed I simply intend to renominate it once both the two week period for re-nomination has passed and my other FAC nomination is closed, so it won't be the end of the world. Have a nice day. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reviewer only spot-checked the citations, and I rectified only the ones that were identified. The article actually needs to be examined for all the sources. I've been a bit occupied but it would be helpful if you checked over those, particularly those that you added after my review. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 18:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It might interest you to know that I have nominated the article for the feature film that was inspired by the murder, Blackrock (film), for FAC, see here. All comments on the nomination are welcome. =D Freikorp (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Great Britain at the 2016 Summer Olympics

[edit]

I have to say your repeated removal of the Scottish independence section is extremely unhelpful. I can see why you say that it is speculation, but by that measure all the issues that may result from the referendum fall under that category; factors such as such as currency, health care and membership of international bodies (including those for sports/Olympics) have been studied, discussed and reported in the news - therefore they have been covered in various places on Wikipedia. I would think that a reader coming to the article would expect to see whatever information is available on how independence would affect the Great Britain team and including quotes from an official government report and the VP of the IOC are more than "rhetoric" and "ref bombing". Frankly I'd expect a bit more discussion and courtesy from such an experienced editor instead of the blanking of content. I'd ask that you reconsider restoring the section yourself - Basement12 (T.C) 14:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look; I still think we could include more but it was good to have some mention in there when the article appeared on the front page and it's not worth arguing over. If the Scots do vote yes I'm sure chaos will ensue and there will be plenty to update with - Basement12 (T.C) 19:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the Scots vote to secede, there will be more to update it with, that's true. When that happens, speculation will decrease and facts/certainty will increase. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Script-assisted" edit changed title of work to sentence case

[edit]

Hello again. I noticed that this "Script-assisted" edit changed the title of a work from title case to sentence case. Based on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_works I think this is wrong. If this was a scripted part of the change, I think the script needs checking.TuxLibNit (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TuxLibNit: Which sentence or word? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: The change is in a {{cite web}} and is from |work=Former Members of Parliament to |work=Former members of parliament, as shown in the short diff I provided).TuxLibNit (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TuxLibNit: members and parliament should not be capitalized, ohconfucius probably followed such fundamental rule. Anyways, now I have seen that it was about the work parameter, I think "|work=Former Members of Parliament" is incorrect, it should be "|work=Parliament.nsw.gov.au" or "|work=Parliament of NSW". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree members of parliament should not usually be capitalised in article main text, but I beleive it should be capitalised in a {{cite web}} |work=. I'll wait for Ohconfucius to comment before making any further responses.TuxLibNit (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; 99.9% of instances will be downcased, and this rare exception was caught by the script. Normally we scrutinise, but occasionally one slips through. I'll change it now. Tony (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. I'm sorry I didn't spot that earlier. The |work= parameter is meant to display the name of the publication (work) that contains the relevant information. It italicises. OTOH, websites are not generally italicised, and the publisher field already contains the publisher's name (Parliament of NSW), so what's in the work parameter is redundant and ought to be removed outright. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I was unclear but as far as I'm concerned, the topic of this thread is whether automated or semi-automated edits are being made incorrectly and (if there was an error) whether anything can or should be done to improve matters. I'm not keen to enter a multi-way discussion of this specific cite unless it is directly relevant to use of the script or tools used to make the edit. If we must do so, please can we do it on a different thread or after my main concern is resolved.

Going back to my original concern I'm hoping for a response that looks a bit like one of:

  • "This is an error in the script that will be/has been fixed."
  • "The script made an error in this case but we understand why. These errors are supposed to be caught and fixed by hand before accepting the edit and usually we do catch them."
  • "The script is doing the right thing because ..."
  • "This was a manual addition to the edit."

... or some similar possibility I havn't thought of. I hope that is clearer. TuxLibNit (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. I see it as a one-off error caused by the GIGO principle, and I don't believe it's likely to recur systematically. The downcasing would be proper in 99+% of cases, so I do not believe the script needs to be adjusted. I will keep an eye out in case the rate is lower than 99+%, and will make necessary adjustments as and when these arise. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John McFarlane Gray

[edit]

I saw that on this article you removed the accessdate parameter from some of the source definitions and then changed the date format on the citations. I have undone these changes. The YYYY-MM-DD date format is acceptable in citations regardless of the date format used in the body. I have not read the printed books cited, but have viewed a website that purports to show images of the printed pages. This website does not always attribute pages accurately (example), and is subject to revision. As with any url, an accessdate is appropriate since it shows when the source was seen – the version being cited – useful when retrieving archived page images. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was most unhelpful to revert the entirety of my edits. The access dates in the case of google books is entirely unnecessary as most only point to a description about the book. Even if it was to a readable page of the book, such access dates are meaningless because the page is a scan of a printed version which is already cited; the date it was accessed is wholly irrelevant to anything. It's actually questionable that the link itself should be included as it confers no benefit to the reader once the essential title, isbn, author, page number and year of publication are filled in. Also, there were formatting errors caused by inappropriate use of the |ref=harvard field. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of ref=harv in source definitions is valid even if the article text does not use the harvid. It has no effect on what the reader sees, and may be useful. The point, again see this example and think about what you see, is that there is no guarantee that what is being displayed is in fact what Google claims it is. All we know is that this is what Google displayed for that url on that date. Google is just a website like any other. All convenience links should include both url and date. I will again revert your change. I have no interest in getting into an edit war, but see no point in removing information that may potentially be valuable. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't believe you're still reverting me. I suggest you paste the following into your vector.js page, and you will see the sea of red that your harvard refs, included because "they may be useful", generate :

        importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');

        Regards. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        • I have that, with window.checkLinksToCitations = false; If you check the script documentation you will see the reasoning. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no reason to set the default to "false". In any event, the templates are located within the publications section and are not destined for use as citations, so I think your point is rather moot. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I often copy-paste a chunk of text with a citation from an article I started to another that does not use harvid citations. I stick the source definition inside <ref></ref> tags, add page numbers and remove the {{sfn}} template. Later I may copy-paste from that article to another that does use harvid citations. I have also, not often but sometimes, put an {{sfn}} link to a source definition in a publications section, as in "He published A History of Zenobia in 1775.[1]. I use http://reftag.appspot.com/ to format citations, and it is easiest to just let it harvid all citations. There is no harm and it may be useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Will you please stop removing blue links to West End theatre? As I have told you before, American readers have specifically said that not all readers outside the United Kingdom know what the term means, and that is why we always link it. You will see that the term is linked in Featured Articles on Gielgud, Richardson et al, and nobody at PR or FAC has ever suggested that the term is an WP:OVERLINK. I am reverting your edit. If you wish to restore your other edits, which look on the face of it quite harmless, and even beneficial, then fine, but please don't bulldoze your lone opinion through against the consensus. Tim riley talk 09:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massif

[edit]

Thanks for your edits, but please try not to link to redirects. It's Mont Blanc massif not Mont Blanc Massif! Ericoides (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nbsp in dates

[edit]

I thought you and I had an amicable discussion on this a while ago and you agreed that nbsp in dates was okay. What's changed? Since you used MOSNUM to back your argument, I see no statement there forbidding its use in dates. Further, the Ranges section of that guideline gives the following example of correct usage:

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist ...
Markup: 12{{nbsp}}February 1809{{snd}}19{{nbsp}}April 1882 or 12&nbsp;February 1809&nbsp;&ndash; 19&nbsp;April 1882

Also, you've been changing ranks to sentence case. Ranks are either all lower case when used in the form "Bloggs was promoted to flight lieutenant", or in title case when used in the form "Flight Lieutenant Bloggs". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I'd not realised there was an snd template. So there's an nd template too? Something to tell the Windows users. The only thing I have against the non-breaking space is that it makes the edit mode more indigestible for would-be editors. I do wish we have a less intrusive and more convenient code for nbsps. This was explored years ago without success. Tony (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, good to hear from you. I agree it'd be nice to have easier forms of markup but I'm not forcing anyone to use it. I just happen to think nbsp in dates is as logical as in other areas of WP and if there's no rule against it (indeed, the example above seems to encourage its use) then these otherwise helpful scripts should leave it alone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nbsp inside date strings isn't "harmful" per se, but complicates maintenance of date formats. Some time ago, before I built protection for certain dates from script action, I used the nbsp to protect titles with dates from being changed. Over time, I came to realise that there are the occasional articles with nbsp in date strings that prevented correct uniformisation when they ought to have been aligned. But this issue of nbsp in date strings only exists with a very small proportion of articles, and even then often not uniformly for all dates, so this has not been a serious problem. The presence of the string, as well as the apparently increasing number of templates performing such functions, creates an issue with detection and correction of errant formats. In addition, these represent unnecessary clutter on screen while in edit mode. That's why I coded the script to remove these in the first instance before the script aligns dates. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed my question of what's changed since we last had this conversation and, as far as I recall, reached agreement that nbsp was not forbidden in dates and therefore didn't need to be removed. As far as supposed clutter goes, lots of things can cause that in edit mode, it's there to create a better look for the reader. I've had dozen of people copyedit articles I've written at GAN or FAC and not one has ever raised a concern with nbsp in dates or anywhere else. Now based on all that I'd like to restore it where I've used it without being reverted again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much has changed, it seems, except that my memory has gotten worse; or the 40k+ edits I have made since when we last talked in January have blurred my mind. Anyone running my script will strip out the nbsp until I manage to reconfigure it. So I think that to reduce the risk of that happening, the best thing is if you could help out by ensuring the date tag ({{use dmy dates|date=month yyyy}}) in each article you have this nbsp system is updated regularly, say every few months. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, and apologies if you've mentioned that last bit to me before and I've forgotten it (we all have our memory lapses)... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lugard Road

[edit]
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC) 12:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Darren Allison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Something for the Weekend. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subtemplates redux

[edit]

I have asked you previously (#Subtemplates, above) not to break event templates; you have done so again here. Please desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Arthur Fields (photographer)

[edit]

Hi Ohconfucius. The more I look at the article, the more I share your concerns. Perhaps a CCI might be a bit much for just one article, tho. What do you think? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted text

[edit]

When doing "Script-assisted fixes per MOS:NUM", please observe the first paragraph of MOS;NUM, headed "Quotations, titles, etc.":

Quotations, titles of books and articles, and similar "imported" text should be faithfully reproduced, even if they employ formats or units inconsistent with these guidelines or with other formats in the same article.

Thanks. Stanning (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Talib Jauhari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vice-chancellor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

[edit]

I noticed your changes to some spellings of sources in the footnotes and am particularly puzzled about "The Telegraph". Clicking on both "The Telegraph" and "The Daily Telegraph" citations in the footnotes brings up "The Telegraph" as the title of the newspaper. I am fairly sure the printed newspaper version is still "The Daily Telegraph", so is "The Telegraph" just its online name? The Wikipedia article on the newspaper is no help on this. I also noticed that you changed "Aljazeera" to "Al Jazeera", which of course is the proper name, so am I right in thinking that online names like "Aljazeera", "alarabiya" and "The Telegraph" should not be used in footnote citations? I also wondered about "The Huffington Post", which is the title in the Wikipedia article on it, but you have changed it to "Huffington Post" in the footnotes. Is there any WP guidance on citation conventions? ---P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @P123ct1: Through the script, I try to align the names of sources or works to their namespaces in WP, so naturally "Aljazeera", "Aljazeera.com" or "Aljazeera English" would be changed to "Al Jazeera". I see there is no point piping so: |work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] when |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] is cleaner. On the other hand, I thank you for drawing my attention to "The Huffington Post". This omission/removal of the prefix seems to be an error on my part, which I have now adjusted the script for. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Apurva Asrani
added a link pointing to Children of War
Jo Aleh
added a link pointing to Kingston
Kan Singh Parihar
added a link pointing to Vice-chancellor
Mujahid Kamran
added a link pointing to Vice-chancellor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,  Ohc ¡digame! 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

[edit]

Thank you for your reply about formatting newspapers. Can you answer my question about The Daily Telegraph, please? Should it be "The Telegraph" in the footnotes, which is the way it appears on the website text, or "The Daily Telegraph"? Wikipedia's article on The Daily Telegraph" is no help here. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC) P123ct1 (talk)[reply]

  • @P123ct1:It depends, because there are several "The Telegraphs". My script is unable to parse except where the underlying link is The Daily Telegraph or the field is |work=telegraph.co.uk. So if the field is |work=Telegraph, it gets left alone. I hope that answers your question. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC
When you say there are several "The Telegraph"s, I presume you mean others that are not the English newspaper. As the website that comes up on clicking in the text either The Telegraph or The Daily Telegraph (English newspapers) is always headed The Telegraph, I wondered if the wikitext for the citaton should read The Telegraph and not The Daily Telegraph. That was all. I can easily put The Telegraph in the wikitext for the citation, but you seem to have a problem doing this, or perhaps I misunderstood you. When creating the footnote, should I not always follow the website heading that comes up, i.e. The Telegraph, and put that in for "work="? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @P123ct1: On the paper version (the last one I saw, anyway), it's definitely The Daily Telegraph, but that's not entirely relevant. Each WP article occupies a namespace that is determined often in isolation or sometimes plainly to follow common convention. There are occasionally attempts to make these coherent on a global level. It's not an issue I am particularly interested in right now, I just try to ensure the script follows the namespaces given. If it's decided by consensus to move the article to The Telegraph, I'll adjust my script accordingly. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denstone College

[edit]

Just wondering why in your edit of Denstone College (18 May 2014), "Staffordshire" has been de-capitalised a few times, as I believe counties should always be capitalised (but I may be wrong)  Ohc ¡digame! 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13tsf13 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...and...

[edit]

Thanks for your script fixes to an article I worked on, Francis Tregian the Younger. I noted you inverted the day from month day to day month -- and I believe that WP takes the attitude that this should not be done automatically (assuming one way if preferable to another way) and that if the article consistently has it one way, it should not be altered. -- 16:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kosboot: MOS:DATEUNIFY states that the dates should be unified, but allows for either unifying based on strong national ties to a topic or retaining the existing format. Maybe Ohconfucius should add a link to WP:STRONGNAT in the edit summary to indicate that the edit is using the former. GoingBatty (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GB. My edit summary indeed already refers to WP:TIES. Cheers, -- Ohc ¡digame! 21:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TIES would be for the varieties of English spelling, and WP:STRONGNAT would be for the varieties of date formats, right? GoingBatty (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at where those shortcuts lead suggests to me that WP:TIES is more over-arching, whilst WP:STRONGNAT apples more specifically to dates. However, both are in fact saying we need to apply styles relating to "STRONG NATIONAL TIES", and I don't think I need both in my edit summaries. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request FYI

[edit]

Hi Ohconfucius! I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 12. GoingBatty (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AWB error

[edit]

Thanks for your date format and Br. spelling corrections, but please do not delink solicitor, where you mean a lawyer, because in the US, the word means a salesperson. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melford Stevenson

[edit]

I just noticed the edit that you made some time ago here. I think something went wrong.

Your "fix" included changing the expression "in the case of Ryan (1964) 50 Cr App R 144, at 148" to say "in the case of Ryan (1964) 500 million App R 144, at 148". Unfortunately, Cr App R is an English law report but "500 million App R" makes no sense.

I guess you have some sort of (semi-)automated editing software that thinks a number followed by Cr must mean crore? Unfortunately that is not necessarily the case. May I suggest that you might want to change the software, and/or take more care when reviewing the suggested edits.

I also see that you delinked LLB. Is that so obvious that there is no need for a link? -- Ferma (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I see you re-fixed that instance after my previous message, but a cursory search (for "million App R") also finds one instance that has survived since October 2013, and another from June 2013 - ChrisGualtieri that time, not you. No doubt this is a rare error, but might there be other instances of a number before "Cr" which don't involve the Criminal Appeal Reports? Is there an easy way to locate and fix any other errors of this nature? -- Ferma (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jon Gomm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Message in a Bottle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date script

[edit]

In cleaning up Al-Qaeda, the script want to change "the September 11 attacks" to "the September 11 attacks". --  Gadget850 talk 14:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cleanup-bare URLs}}

[edit]

Hello, just a note that I've linked to your wonderful tools from Template:Cleanup-bare URLs/doc. Is that okay? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 23:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speed values in Burt Munro article

[edit]

Hi. I've noticed you're using a script to change a decimal to a comma in some numbers. In the Burt Munro article, this has the effect of changing his record-setting speed from a value in the hundreds of kph to a value in the hundreds of thousands of kph. This makes no sense. Please double check you're changing annotation that really needs to be corrected. Thanks. Mindfrieze (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Occupy Central with Love and Peace logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠
 Thanks for uploading File:Occupy Central with Love and Peace logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alliance for Peace and Democracy (Hong Kong)

[edit]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy McMurdo

[edit]

hi Ohconfucius, am trying to figure out how to address your query on the Wendy McMurdo WP ('check date values' re the Salamanca book. The two dates are to reflect the fact that there are two separate editions (one date actually being wrong!) - would you be able to help me fix that? The 1st Edition was dated September 1998, the 2nd Edition dated January 2001 ... many thanks in advance.Liquorisky (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stepped in a minefield

[edit]

Greets... someone thinks I'm a repeat offender after only one cleanup attempt on an article [2] - perhaps you can take a peek to see if I went off base. Dl2000 (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saiman Miah

[edit]

Dear Ohconfucius, I invite you to express your opinion about the article for deletion. --Rossi101 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Rossi101[reply]

What was this?

[edit]

Can you please restore the flags in the current squad? Here. You failed to gain support for the flag removal from the squads of diverse sports squads, so please don't make unnecessary work to other editors. FkpCascais (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference of 2005

[edit]

When you have time, I hope you can fix the whole article. --George Ho (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you can take a break from the current protests and focus on this article instead. --George Ho (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests#Add back John Ross (academic)'s reaction?

[edit]

zzz and I were discussing what you removed. Well, zzz didn't like the entry either. I am sure that it is not a minority opinion, and it may not violate UNDUE. --George Ho (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Greetings! It seems that the user restored his edit at MOS:LINK[3]. Care to take a look? :P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg

[edit]

Since you seem to be particularly interested in this image, a headsup to Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg.--KTo288 (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:0081 motor and spindle.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:0081 motor and spindle.jpg, which you've attributed to Sean Fretwell. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:0088 33rpm moving.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:0088 33rpm moving.jpg, which you've attributed to Sean Fretwell. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hoi Fut Tin Hung

[edit]

I've made comments. May you reply? --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a three-year-old problem for you

[edit]

This edit of yours changed an infobox parameter that no one seems to have noticed for three years. The parameter is to be | genesis_1:1-3= and your script--and I'm assuming it was a script and not done manually--changed the dash to an en-dash. DOH! I just fixed it. Could you please confirm that the current versions of the script don't repeat this error? Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, you mean changed the (wrong) hyphen to a (correct) en dash (which is not itself hyphenated). All number ranges for verses in the Bible should appear with an en dash. Tony (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:20141114 Hong Kong protests Admiralty bridge.jpg

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:20141114 Hong Kong protests Admiralty bridge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. STSC (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date format in Linux articles

[edit]

Hello! Any chances, please, for you to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software § Date format in release history sections of Linux articles and possibly comment there by providing your point of view? The whole thing is pretty much poorly discussed with only a few editors actually discussing it, while it seems to be affecting more than a few articles (and the date format seems to be extending beyond the tables into references, please see history of the Linux distribution article). Any contributions to the discussion would be highly appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohconfucius/Art of the Umbrella Movement

[edit]

May I rename it to "Art of the 2012 Hong Kong protests"? --George Ho (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not actually ready to move it to mainspace just yet. I am creating a couple more articles, and need a few more days to get my ducks lined up. On the name, I'm thinking that it should be "Art of the Umbrella movement". This is because the protests are a subset of the movement, and the artwork is mostly themed on umbrellas, so I feel it would make little sense to call it art of the protests, because it would narrow the scope excessively. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:CRITERIA? --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the name would comply with all the criteria, with the possible exception of consistency with other articles in the series, and I think that is likely to change. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is the main important criterion. Too bad ISIL and "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" happen in other titles. Impatience harms Wikipedia, not helps. That is all. --George Ho (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that consistency is important, but accuracy is more so. If we name the article "Art of the 2012 Hong Kong protests", it becomes reductive. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate reductive for me please. --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oversimplification, during which too much meaning gets lost. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...You read what Dekimatsu said: there is no agreement to use "Umbrella" and no agreement to pick either "Movement" or "Revolution". Other non-Chinese language articles don't use either Revolution or Movement; just Hong Kong and 2014. --George Ho (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who TF is Dekimatsu and why is their view so important? Most of the art, where there is any writing, says "Umbrella movement" on it. So by definition, the artists are referring to the art as belonging to the movement.-- Ohc ¡digame! 16:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closer of the recent RM on "2014 Hong Kong protests" in case you forgot. --George Ho (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

umbrella movement

[edit]

I didn't know you converted a redirect page to a disambiguation page(?). I did rename your creation to "Art of the 2014 Hong Kong protests", but I'm confused. What about WP:DIFFCAPS? umbrella movement dabpage is a big step, and I don't know whether a reader can tell a difference between "movement" and "Movement". --George Ho (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to rename the art subpage back, tell me the meaning of "umbrella movement". I don't like the difference between movement and Movement. The dabpage lists groups participating the protests. --George Ho (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George, I believe it needs to be lower case. This has recently been confirmed in two class RMs, here and here. The crux of it is the issue of whether the item is descriptive (one test is whether it could easily be substituted, and here, "movement" could, don't you think?). Tony (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: YES, PLEASE MOVE IT BACK. I didn't think for a moment that you would move it without my agreement. I don't understand why you moved it, and I can't tell you how upset I am at your having done it within seconds of me transferring it to mainspace. This was extremely discourteous of you. We had a discussion about this and it was unresolved; we didn't even agree to disagree. Anyway, the grounds you cited (lower or upper case "m" for "movement") is spurious for a move to the "Art of the 2014 Hong Kong protests". I agree with what Tony says, the "m" ought to be lower case – there's far too much over-capitalisation on Wikipedia. Now, if you would please put the article back where you found it. Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you would desist in any further "clever" renaming actions without taking them to WP:RM. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your determination and attitude; what is democracy to you?

[edit]

By determining your attitude and determination, I have noticed you are favouring Hong Kong democracy. You know that democracy is a rule of majority, and the majority of Hong Kongers speak Cantonese with some English. Lately, Mandarin language has been also taught in schools since the 1997 handover to China. Do majority want Hong Kong to be a country like Singapore, be part of China, be part of the British rule again, or be ruled by another sovereign state like Germany, Russia, or the United States? Also, how would children rule when they grow up as a majority? Do they graduate from high schools and/or colleges? Even when you might claim not to advocate for Hong Kong democracy, this is Wikipedia, and I assure you that I was following WP:NOTADVOCACY and not advocating anything, like proposing titles in favour of one group or another. I was just proposing consistency; that's all. I hope you follow that policy too. What happened to that familiar phrase, "think about others before yourself"? Well, I didn't know this Romans verse, "Putting Others Ahead of Yourself." --George Ho (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was merely expecting you to observe simple courtesies. I now know that was too much to ask. This project works on consensus, and you certainly didn't do anything to cultivate that with your "clever" moves (at least two now that I have experienced first hand). I believe that my editing has been without bias throughout, and if it is not, you are welcome to rectify same or point out to me for rectification. I did not lecture you on politics nor speculate on your political allegiances or beliefs, so kindly do not deign to do that to me. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Umbrella Movement

[edit]

There is a dispute because someone tried to overwrite your initial efforts. --George Ho (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia genealogy project

[edit]

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Joshua Wong (activist)

[edit]

You were involved with this article; I invite you to discuss the page move proposal. --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Umbrella Movement

[edit]

Please keep the discussion going. Lmmnhn (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Ultra Marathon

[edit]

You said you want to merge it into Umbrella Movement. Will you do it? I don't know how to place the information. --George Ho (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you shred some lights...

[edit]

In these other move discussions:

TheAvatar (discuss–?) 18:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...umm, Confucius, you might want to discuss the general matter in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). --George Ho (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your expert attention requested

[edit]

The article Qigong fever needs a lot of work, and I mean a lot of work. You are probably the best person I can think of to help in that matter, if you were to choose to do so. The article, I honestly think, may possibly even fall within the discretionary sanctions enacted in the first FG arbitration, although maybe that would need to be specified through clarification or amendment by the ArbCom. I can I think get the Palmer book if you can't, and if you want I can search the various databanks I have access to and forward to you anything that seems relevant. But at this point I think you are probably the person with the best background in the topic to help develop this article and the related ones, if you so desire. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Umbrella Movement

[edit]

Can you respond to the template talk? Lmmnhn (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

[edit]

style fixes
Thank you for quality articles such as Murder of Leigh Leigh, Amina Bokhary controversy and Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker, for tireless style fixes, for electing ArbCom to resolve disputes, not to govern, for fighting flag abuse and for sharing the image Elephant Birth, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Temperature Scale Conversion

[edit]

I highly suggest that you remove automated temperature scale conversion from your scripts, as these are problematic in practice, as evidenced in e.g. Thermal death time:

  1. The conversion for absolute temperatures is different from conversion of temperature changes. An absolute temperature of 10˚C is 50˚F but an increase/decrease of 10˚C is an increase/decrease of 18˚F. Which conversion algorithm needs to be applied MUST be derived from context and thus cannot be automated. (See http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58418.html )
  2. Your script handles ˚F->˚C but not the reverse, introducing bias.
  3. Articles often already contain both scales, producing redundant output like "... 250˚F (121˚C) or 121˚C."

{{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}

Script edit summaries

[edit]

Hello, Ohconfucius and than you for your scripts :) I was just wondering if the "Delink COMMON trems" script's edit summary could be adjusted from this to something more descriptive such as here. Havn't had any issues but, it seems a little more info wouldn't hurt. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ml, glad you don't mind the script. If OC increases the amount of info in the edit summaries, it will make for less room to manually add points, which I sometimes do. So piping and abbreviating additional stuff would be good. Cheers. Tony (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shirley

[edit]

I had to remove the changes that were made by a banned user (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam/Archive 94.210.203.230 & LouisAragon). You can make your changes again if you want to. Oh and Happy New Year! Bladesmulti (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles Invite

[edit]
Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!
Todo list:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Vitale 5 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Art of the Umbrella Movement

[edit]
The DYK project (nominate) 08:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"

[edit]

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tsuyoshi-kikukawa-disgraced.jpg

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Tsuyoshi-kikukawa-disgraced.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

You may want to check Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second phase or just 2015 Hong Kong protests?

[edit]

I brought up the issue at Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests. --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Paris tramway/transfer

[edit]

Template:Paris tramway/transfer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a new script

[edit]

It would be great to have a script that unifies formatting of authors in references (both templated and non-templated) from Albert Smith to Smith, Albert and vice versa. Of course it would fail on some names (Hispanic etc.), but humans fail there too, so this would be acceptable. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Umbrella Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joshua Wong. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems

[edit]

Hello Ohconfucius. Would you want to share your 2 cents regarding the status of Hong Kong for the purpose of its listing in this list of tramways? 124.217.187.8 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. Paul's College, Hong Kong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Stephen's College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Måns

[edit]

Please take a look at the article about Måns Zelmerlöw. I have done several edits to improve the article ahead of his likely Melodifestivalen winning next weekend. Any further improvements are appreciated. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous delinking by User:Ohconfucius/script/Common_Terms.js

[edit]

Someone using your Common Terms.js just removed lots of links from Earth. While much of the delinking was correct and helpful, some of it (alumina, nickel, earthquake, tropics, season, etc, etc) was, in my judgement, not warranted. While some of these terms have particular relevance to Earth that they would not often have elsewhere, I would think that alumina and nickel (for example) should almost always be linked. This is based on my understanding of the guidelines at WP:LINKING. What do you think? A2soup (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comment, A2soup. The script will remove links that are generally overused, and I have made it clear in the documentation that I do not seek to impose an orthodoxy with it. It probably should have been used with greater circumspection on the Earth article, or some of the links reinstated during the edit. Perhaps you ought to take the matter up with the editor concerned. As to alumina and nickel, I would happily adjust the script so that it doesn't unlink them. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! A2soup (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiki questions

[edit]

There is some argument regarding exactly how to describe the above practice on its talk page. On of the fundamental questions, at least to my eyes, is about how to describe adequately in the lead the fact that Chinese systems to not have the mind/body/soul differentiation that we tend to take as a given in Western philosophy, and which to an extent undergirds our use of words like "religion" and "spiritual." You seem to be maybe our best informed editor, at least in my eyes, regarding the whole qigong thing, and I think your input might be useful regarding how to describe the bases for this topic adequately in this article, and, for all I know, other similar articles. I am in the process of starting a section relating to this on the talk page, at Talk:Reiki#Pseudoscientific aspects of Eastern religions in general, and would welcome your input on how to address this matter, given the amount of time and attention you have given to related issues. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor bug in citation cleanup script?

[edit]

I think there may be a minor bug in one of your scripts. I have cleaned up the same error made about a dozen times by different editors, which makes me think that it is not a manual editing error.

It looks like this, specifically the change from |work=MTV|publisher=MTV Networks (Viacom)| to |publisher=MTV|= (Viacom)|. The change leaves an unsupported parameter (see Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters) in the citation. One solution would be to remove the pipe after "MTV", but I don't know what your intent was, so I'll let you do it your way. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Hopefully it's now fixed. I chose to do a clean remove of the Viacom in parentheses. I don't see much point in having it there. After all, one day, MTV Networks is already the holding company for something that is universally known, making the mention of Viacom totally redundant. And Viacom might sell MTV Networks one day... -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also now included a fix to remove non-parameter "|= (Viacom)", or any alphanumeric string within those parentheses following "|publisher=MTV". I doubt that there will be any false positives. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a little buggy. (Search for "Robots Finally Emerge" to see the problem citation.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated scripts

[edit]

Hi Ohconfucius. I edited your formatgeneral.js to update you to the latest version of TemplateScript. You were using a much older version called regex menu framework, so the main difference you'll see is an improved regex editor (along with many new features for text snippets and scripting). I also updated deprecated functions. Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 05:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pathoschild: I have 5 scripts that all use your script. I've migrated for User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js. Can you tell me if any other changes are required to it? -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One major change is that the shortcut methods like regex(search, replace) are no longer supported. Since jQuery is now loaded by default, code like this is much easier to write:
var editor = $('#wpTextbox1'), text = editor.val();
text = text
   .replace(/sample/g, 'replace')
   .replace(/sample/g, 'replace')
   .replace(/sample/g, 'replace');
editor.val(text);
That code also has much better performance — changing text is fast, but updating the textbox in the DOM is pretty slow so you should only do it once.
Typically the migration isn't a problem because the deprecated methods are rarely used, but your scripts are heavily dependent on regex(). There are two options to migrate to the newer version:
  • I can rewrite your scripts to use the new paradigm — some things might break due to the extent of the changes needed, but I would be on standby if anything went wrong.
  • or I can add a backwards-compatible regex() method to your scripts that works just like the old one — this is safe, but you don't benefit from the improved performance.
What do you prefer? —Pathoschild 16:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pathoschild: I hardly understand any coding, so I would be pleased if you reconfigured the five principal scripts of mine to run on the new more efficient code. I would suggest doing that on my test scripts, which sit in the User:Ohconfucius/test path. If everything is satisfactory, I will align the production scripts. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tentatively migrated MOSNUM utils.js and MOSNUM dates.js to the approach I suggest. This includes the following changes.
  1. Custom portlet: the date functions now use TemplateScript to add a custom 'date fixes' portlet instead of using the default toolbox (see screenshot).
  2. Minimal DOM manipulation: I moved all page interactions into the top-level 'driver' functions. This means when you click a script in the sidebar, it will make all the changes in memory and save the changes once. For example, most functions were changed like this:
    Before → After 
    function ohc_ISO_to_dmy_in_citations() {
    ohc_regex(/.../gi, "...");
}
    		→ 
    function ohc_ISO_to_dmy_in_citations(text) {
    return ohc_regex(text, /.../gi, '...');
}
    This has two immediate benefits: better performance (DOM manipulation is relatively expensive), and unit testability (we can feed them different values and compare their results against what we expected).
  3. Chaining syntax: I switched the code to chain changes for better readability. For example:
    Before → After 
    function ohc_delink_dates(text) {
    text = ohc_regex(text, /.../gi, '...');
    text = text.replace(/.../gi, '...');
    text = text.replace(/.../gi, '...');
    return text;
}
    		→ 
    function ohc_delink_dates(text) {
    return text
        .ohc_regex(/.../gi, '...')
        .replace(/.../gi, '...')
        .replace(/.../gi, '...');
}
  4. Namespacing: I moved all functions into an ohc namespace, so the functions are no longer global. This also gives us nice autocompletion in debug tools.
  5. No more globals: I converted the linkmap global into local variables. This makes each function more predictable since it's not affected by external state.
  6. No more deprecated functions: I removed the obsolete regex menu framework and rewrote any code that depended on it.
Two questions before I continue:
  • Do you disagree with any of these changes?
  • Do you have a list of expected conversions for each script? I can create some unit tests to make sure nothing broke in the transition.
(Note that these changes aren't tested or ready to deploy yet.)
—Pathoschild 05:43, 01 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand the principles behind the changes, and it seems like worthwhile gains are to be had, thanks! I have no test page for the formatting script.
For the MOSNUM script, I use the following test pages:User:Full-date unlinking bot/Test environment and User:Dl2000/testtemp7
For the Sources script, I use User:Ohconfucius/test/Sourcestest
For the Common terms script, there is User:Ohconfucius/test/Common Terms test page
For the ENGVAR script, there is User:Ohconfucius/U.S. Spelling versus British and Canadian Spellings.
Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Technical Barnstar
After been using your gadgets for a long time, I hereby award this barnstar specially for you as the developer. Many thanks! It has make my time to change to British spelling much easier. :) ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 11:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned

[edit]

Your name has been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#Request for reinstating indefinite topic ban on User:Ohconfucius. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward McMillan-Scott

[edit]

Do you think he's an idiot? Aaabbb11 (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll try an easier (admittedly off topic) question. Do you own a Roksan Xerxes? I've got a Linn Sondek LP12 Aaabbb11 (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be nice, but gosh, no. None of those. I enjoy researching about iconic hi-fi that I know little about, with a view to developing articles about them. Call it feeding a fantasy. ;-) Regards,-- Ohc ¡digame! 04:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a big fan of LPs as long as you have a good turntable and cartridge. So for me someone selling their record collection is a tragedy for them. I bought my Sondek in the 80s for $1500 second hand. It paid for itself as at times I was buying mint condition LPs on sale for $1 when second hand record stores were overstocked. But the suspension on the Sondek has collapsed according to the tech guy. I should have bought your Xerses ! Are they low maintenance? Aaabbb11 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Linn is a very different animal and has different colouration to the Roksan; the Linn has a warmer and fuzzier sound while the Roksan seems more clinical in presentation but is actually less musical than the Linn. Unfortunately the Roksan suffers from something called "plinth droop" – interaction between the cut-out and the platter weight. The Linn doesn't have that problem, AFAIK. Even the earliest Linns can be serviced so that it works as well as it did new. A collapsed suspension can usually be fixed just by replacing the springs – needs a service once a year or two. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for info:)))) Makes me a lot happier about the sad state of my Sondek. Sounds like you know lots more about my Sondek than I do. My Sondek hasn't been serviced other than replacing the cartridge. Have you listened to Musical Fidelity Amps? I tried out a pre amp decades ago and couldn't believe how smooth it was compared to the pre amp of my Rotel 840 BX2. But maybe it was too smooth, I don't know. Aaabbb11 (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • People tend to like valve amps because they sound softer (smoother less aggressive). I listen mainly to rock and jazz, and I like it to start and stop in a way that valves aren't capable of delivering. The Rotel was a very good-sounding amp at its price point when it came out, but it is no miracle worker. The NAIT utterly destroys it. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realised the Musical Fidelity amp didn't make much different on typical rock tracks. But nice on the quiet stuff. Have been told Rotel is weak link in my system. Was first bit of decent gear I bought. What amp do you use? Aaabbb11 (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most expensive system I listened to was about $30k decades back. Sounded amazing until you turned down the volume and got the hum of the value amps. I like low volume so not for me. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things: 1/Hum is usually due to earthing issues somewhere in the equipment chain. It may be the amp but may be from elsewhere. 2/Music needs to be enjoyed at "realistic" volumes, but unfortunately there are always other factors making that the exception than the rule for domestic listening. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I mean is speakers with a quick decay like B&W with 8 inch bass, compared to old fashioned Altec 3s with 12 inch bass speakers (with no quick decay) really show up when you put Yello on. They are the only band I can recall where it was so noticeable. Yello was my reference band for checking speaker decay. Listen to Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to the Arbitration Enforcement

[edit]

FYI: An arbitration enforcement request has been filed regarding your conduct. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'pro-regime'?

[edit]

i don't have a cat, dog, or any other small creature in this fight, and it looks unfortunate and messy - but i could not identify where thesoundandthefury characterizes you as 'Pro-Regime', as you wrote in the ae response? Here is the link that you provided: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=654952376.Happy monsoon day 13:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we encounter the problem of saying something about the alleged or perceived effect of someone's behavior while (apparently) trying not (or trying to but pretending not?) to say something of their intentions. my only question would be Why Can't (Everyone) Be Friends?Happy monsoon day
That would just be too easy and simple... ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And people who are dedicated to promoting the views of certain individual groups, or are obviously sympathetic to them, tend to see anyone who disagrees with them as evil incarnate. We see this sort of thing regarding all sorts of "oppressed" groups or "hated" groups, even if sometimes they really aren't either of those, just basically ignored or not given the publicity and public adulation those individuals see as the group's due. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting observation, John. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

[edit]

In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bo_Xilai&diff=655912045&oldid=655805394 you reverted all 3 changes I made. If you only objected to one change then why revert all 3?

Thanks for sorting it. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWL HighBeam check-in

[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in aircraft articles

[edit]

Greetings! I wanted to let you know I reverted your recent edit to C-47 Skytrain- I understand you are trying to improve the article, but the usage of country flags in the "operator" section of aircraft articles has a long-standing precedent. It may be desirable to change that precedent (I don't really have strong feelings either way)- but it is a change that other editors should be able to weigh in on, so it can be an agreed-to standard. WP:aircraft has a talk page where a standard policy either way could be discussed and documented- maybe start a discussion there?

Thanks for your understanding! Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello Ohconfucius. There is still a complaint about you at WP:AE#Ohconfucius. It will be hard to close this without reaching a conclusion about your Falun-Gong-related subpages. I recommend that you blank or delete User:Ohconfucius/essay/Editing Falun Gong articles on Wikipedia. After I know your answer I'll decide what to propose as the next step at AE. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit makes an improvement but I still think you should completely blank the page. Otherwise it will be repeatedly cited by people who are unhappy with your work. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

[edit]
You are invited to join the Grammy Awards task force, a subproject of WikiProject Awards and prizes dedicated to improving articles and lists related to the Grammy Awards. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants.
Dfrr (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC) (Talk to me:-))[reply]

AWB Unlinking

[edit]

I wanted to ask if it's alright if I copy-paste your script into a sandbox so I can add a few more countries and other terms to the code to delink (e.g., Korea). Is that okay? If not, I totally understand. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive33&oldid=1251481785"