:{{TPS}} Ohconfucius, I think you should ignore this warning; Ncmvocalist himself has been edit warring during the last 3 days or so, and not all of his edit summaries in his reverts are [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. Personally, I can't think of anything that suggests Ncmvocalist knows better than you. [[User:Heymid|<span style="color:green;">Hey</span>]][[User_talk:Heymid|<span style="color:red;">'''''Mid'''''</span>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Heymid|contribs]]) 10:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:{{TPS}} Ohconfucius, I think you should ignore this warning; Ncmvocalist himself has been edit warring during the last 3 days or so, and not all of his edit summaries in his reverts are [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. Personally, I can't think of anything that suggests Ncmvocalist knows better than you. [[User:Heymid|<span style="color:green;">Hey</span>]][[User_talk:Heymid|<span style="color:red;">'''''Mid'''''</span>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Heymid|contribs]]) 10:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::You're quite clearly uninformed about the other incidents that Ohconfucius has been involved in. In regards to my edit-summaries, Heymid, could you please express your concerns about civility to the user in question (if you genuinely have concerns) rather than making unsubstantiated accusations on another person's talk page? Doing the latter is uncivil in itself. Thanks. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::You're quite clearly uninformed about the other incidents that Ohconfucius has been involved in. In regards to my edit-summaries, Heymid, could you please express your concerns about civility to the user in question (if you genuinely have concerns) rather than making unsubstantiated accusations on another person's talk page? Doing the latter is uncivil in itself. Thanks. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:This should be added to the [[WP:LAME|list of lamest edit wars]]. In order to avoid you both getting blocked due to your egos, I would highly suggest you simply remove the credit line to end this ridiculousness. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 11:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 11:47, 9 January 2011
Preamble:
I wanted to send some sort of holiday greeting to my friends and colleagues, but it is difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone. So I met with my solicitor yesterday, and on his advice I wish to state the following:
“
Dear friends and colleagues,
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive , gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday practised with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious / secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2011, but not without due respect for the calendar of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that our country is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:
This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/him or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. The wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}
The Penguin Cabal
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive17.
Dear Ohconfucios,
I noticed you put a tag for speedy deletion on my new article. I am a new user on wikipedia. I am aware that article (created by music43lover) previously was deleted. I thought I did a lot of work in changing a content (please compare new one to older one) and worked a lot on references. I spent hours in doing this, still thinking of creating a new solid encyclopedic version about this pianist. I would rather get a motivation than discouragement.I think Dlohcierekim declined speedy deletion too, although later he changed his mind , still put a remark: "I'll take old confucious word for it, though I don't see it" . I cordially ask you to point out the phrases or sections in the article that makes you think it's a "spam" . I thought the older version had an advertisement content, therefore i created a new one. I made a Biographgy shorter with a reliable references. If List of notable concert appearances and Recording as well as some media section list makes it to think it's a advertisement I will simply remove it. I would really like to get some feedback, rather than get my very first article deleted. Allow me to fix the problems if there are pointing them out. I don't see anything promotional in a BIO section to be honest at all. I think "Dlohcierekim" would agree with me. Thanks! Sausa11 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went through and deflowered the thing. I don't think it's promotional. And I think it asserts sufficient significance to not CSD. See it's been through WP:DRV, so there's probably a history I don't know. Thoughts? Dlohcierekim18:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohconfucios again: As you see from the article's history page there are number of people who have contributed time in this article, there were some removals, edits, cut offs made by different users. I have been communicating with some of them for asking some help in improving the article in order to get it more encyclopedic. I think it's getting better, and basically no one sees it as a promotional, in fact you might want to look at here to see some user's opinion about the article.
I will continue working on the page as time goes by. I think we made some improvements. Thanks! Sausa11 (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article could have more reliable 3rd party sources. In general as I said before it looks good to me and as Dlohcierekim mentioned earlier - I don't think it's promotional. Rexmusic (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB.js
I fixed some bugs in your script, per your request. Hopefully it is now working as you desire. By the way, it looks like you have hard-coded the date in the script. Would you like to make this automatic based on the current month and year? Hopefully I didn't make a mess of anything. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)01:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The script is now tagging once again. What it does now:
on clicking the 'British English' button in an article without any tag, the script task is performed and the tag {{EngvarB|date=December 2010}} is inserted.
on clicking the 'British (Oxford)' button in an article without any tag, the script task is performed and the tag {{EngvarOx|date=December 2010}} is inserted.
on clicking the 'British English' button repeatedly, the tag {{EngvarB|date=December 2010}} is inserted repeatedly.
on clicking the 'British (Oxford)' button repeatedly, the tag {{EngvarOx|date=December 2010}} is inserted repeatedly.
What I would like it to do:
on clicking the 'British English' button, insert the tag {{Use British English|date=December 2010}}.
on clicking the 'British English' button repeatedly, there should only be a single {{EngvarB|date=December 2010}} tag at the end of the operation.
on clicking the 'British (Oxford)' button repeatedly, there should only be a single {{EngvarOx|date=December 2010}} tag at the end of the operation.
on clicking the 'British (Oxford)' button in an article already tagged with {{EngvarB|date=Month Year}}, {{EngvarOx|date=Month Year}} or {{Use British English|date=Month Year}} or similar permutations, the sole tag is updated to {{Use British (Oxford) English|date=Newmonth Newyear}}.
on clicking the 'British English' button in an article already tagged with {{EngvarB|date=Month Year}}, {{EngvarOx|date=Month Year}} or {{Use British English|date=Month Year}}, the tag is updated to {{Use British English|date=Newmonth Newyear}}.
It doesn't matter so much if it inserts EngvarB or EngvarOx, but I would like it not to keep reinserting tags when they already exist; also it is undesirable to have (both) contradictory tags on the same article. Thanks in advance for your help. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I see what you mean. There are a couple solutions. (1) You can check for the tag before inserting one, or (2) you can remove duplicate tags, or (3) you can do both. I will think about it, and see if I can code something up. Plastikspork―Œ(talk)02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a side question: for some reason, some (and only some) of my script buttons -particularly the British English buttons (which are in their own little 'Script' section in the sidebar along with 'Custom regex'), and some others - disappear intermittently, although the script remains callable through a hook (Ohc_ENGVARplus) I placed in my vector file. I wouldn't say this is 'normal' or expected, but have you noticed similar behaviour? Could it perhaps be due to an error in the script somewhere? Ohconfucius¡digame!04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Sorry for delay in answering your comment. If I understood correctly what was said above, the script is already working as desired. Is it needed anything else?
I have a suggestion about this edit: it seems possible to simplify the code using for example {{Use British English|{{subst:DATE}}}} (see for example Template:Clarify). The result would be this. Helder 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try that on my other scripts.
I have noticed that scripts do sometimes work even when there are syntax errors, and have a query/problem OF intermittent faulty loading (above) which is leading me to suspect there may be a bug in one of my scripts. What ways do you use to test? Someone suggested I tried using Firefly to test/debug the code, but I don't find it very intuitive to use, so I didn't bother. --Ohconfucius¡digame!01:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can try Firebug for debugging. Helder 09:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, this new scripting all seems to be working fine for me. Can you please edit the Oxford script to prevent it from changing "paradise" to "paradize"? McLerristarr | Mclay107:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have done so in some table layout lists, PIA was one but its been changed since, there were a few others, it seems all have been changed to thin font now.inspector (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohconfucius. I have commented at the 3RR board. If you wish to continue editing the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative article, I encourage you to do, but perhaps in a more measured fashion? For example, try to make smaller edits? When you do sweeping changes like this,[3] even though you may be in the right to remove unsourced or poorly sourced information, it makes it more difficult for others to follow along and understand the issues. Better is to make one edit which focuses on a specific part of the article, has a clear edit summary, and is accompanied by discussion at the talkpage, and then it can be more clear what's going on. Thanks! --Elonka15:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw you were removing links to countries with AWB. I am pretty sure there is no policy that says you can't do that, and before you go off on removing every link to Americans, Spaniards and the such, I would like community discussion on that. I largely agree that linking years is a little pointless, but there is something to be said for Countries being the central hubs of Wikipedia linkwise, Sadads (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, in this edit, did you unlink South Africa but not any of the other country names in the table? It looks a bit silly to have a table of countries in which all but one of them are wikilinked to the country's article - htonl (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When tagging something Oxford English, could you provide your reasons? I'm not sure a Canadian-Native American born musician who had his big break backing a very American singer and thereafter spent most of his time in the States deserves the privilege! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 13:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending on running my script, which merely changes spelling but not the vernacular, on all Canadian articles; you must excuse the tagging. The 'Oxford' label may seem counter-intuitive at first glance, but according to my reading, Canadian English spelling is identical in most respects to Oxford English, so applying this particular WP:ENGVAR fix seemed appropriate to me. I hope this is a satisfactory explanation. your further feedback would be most welcome. --Ohconfucius¡digame!15:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Canadian English page, "Words such as realize and paralyze are usually spelled with -ize or -yze rather than -ise or -yse." Isn't that contrary to the a key Oxford distinction? And I haven't looked, but would suggest if you haven't your run this by the Wikiproject_canada. There is probably more subtlety required. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does the script deal with quotes that are spelt differently to the rest of the article? For example in the Henry Ford article there is a quote taken from his book "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black". Of course the word colour in a US based article should be color but in this case a quote should not be changed. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the use of <blockquote>quote here</blockquote>, or any one of the quotation templates such as {{quote}} or {{Cquote}}. If the simple double-quote marks ( (QQUOTE HERE)) are preferred, the {{q}} may be used instead. Protection subroutine is run on anything encased by these before the conversion subroutine is unleashed. --Ohconfucius¡digame!18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Words in a different variation of English to the rest of the page could be enclosed in the {{Lang}} template if the script was adjusted to avoid that. That would also prevent it from changing words in foreign languages. For example honor in Latin. McLerristarr | Mclay103:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours!
Hey! Whoa!
Hold up a second. You're on you way to modifying some 700+ article on German football without any discussion. Can we have a word before you get too much further along? Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What aspect in particular are you objecting to? I did not modify some "700 article on German Football", only some of those starting with the letter 'A'. In the meantime, if you are by any chance referring to the replacement of all those consecutive cascade of links [[Germany|German]] [[football (soccer)|football]] [[:Category:German football clubs|club]], with a single focussed '[[List of football clubs in Germany|German football club]]' I would refer you to WP:Linking. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you modified 700+ articles, only that you appeared to be heading that way and that I was looking for some discussion about what you were up to before you got too far along. If you're properly in control of your bot and edits I think you're well aware of what changes I'm referring to (yeah, I am by chance referring to those cascading links). While I get that that you're interested in cleaning up excessive links for the Sake of the Project (thanks for the referral), you've targeted a particular bit of Wikipedia that I'm interested/active in and I'd (reasonably) appreciate the opportunity for some input rather than having to live with some sort of narrow technical interpretation of what does or doesn't make for a good link.
Part of my objection is the targeted, non-consultative nature of the changes. After that, the link chosen as a substitute is a poor one and not one I'm too keen on seeing it applied to all of the German football wiki project articles. There's been some useful discussion back on the linking project talk page that I'm sure you're tuned into by now, so I'll see you over there at some point. Thanks. Wiggy! (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you hold up long enough please for us to have a discussion on what link would be best to use in this circumstance? Thanks. Wiggy! (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A think an edit such as this (purely for demonstration purposes) would probably go some way to allaying your concerns. However, if you have some ideas for a suitable target article which could be applied globally to the football club articles (not just Germany), I would be open to suggestions. For example, for the Italian football club articles, I used football in Italy. Cheers, --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the breather. I'm going to carry this back to the linking talk page where there are some other folks already involved. Thx. Wiggy! (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a better title, in line with the broader base of the article in Chinese, would be 'Pro-Republic of China groups in Hong Kong' or 'Pro-ROC groups in Hong Kong'. zh.WP has quite different standards (including notability and original research) to en.WP, and although I would be quite happy to make use of sources cited there to reference an article in English, I would be extremely prudent in any direct translation of anything therefrom. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion
Dear Ohconfucius: I am asking for your opinion if this quote from the Newspaper I have researched sounds OK to be added for Latsabidze's article:
After his Performance of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto at WUK Kulturhaus, the critic for Vienna’s main newspaper wrote that “Latsabidze is a technically brilliant pianist imbued with a spirit of greatness and genuine profundity” and added that “with a riveting intelligence and extraordinary imagination, given to everything he played, it was the kind of recital you never really forget.” I will put a reference from the newspaper and critic to support this quote. Please let me know. I will not put this in article till I get a few opinions from Wikipedia editors to be on the safe side.
Thanks! Sausa (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is very good right now, with the right tone without straying into promotion. I am unsure about this quote, like the others that have been removed. If you wish to introduce the quote, I think you will need to demonstrate how it is significant, in terms of this being some sort of personal landmark achievement or suchlike (of course on the assumption that the quote used is 'balanced'). Otherwise, it would be best to leave it out. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Not sure what you mean "balanced" thou.. I mean, I can not rewrite someone's quote which was published in newspaper. Any suggestions how would you demonstrate its significance? Well, I thought that quote cares some sort of significant meaning since it belongs to the music critic who reviewed his recital. Maybe you could let me know what did you have in mind when you said "being some sort of personal landmark achievement"? I appreciate that! Sausa (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerts get reviewed all the time, and such reviews have no great biographical significance apart from establishing his notability, which is already the case. Thus, the particular quote you have in mind ought to be for some event which carries a special significance for the artist in terms of his career. One example might be a review of a 'Royal performance'. By balance, I mean that one must not just take the 'good' critique, but anyquote should be perfunctory, and should actually summarise views of other critics (ie be representative). --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohconfucius! As I mentioned earlier I added few short quotes and referenced them appropriately. Please look at the article and see if you have any suggestions regarding those quotes. I tried my best to have those "balanced" as you advised me earlier this week. Thanks for your help! Regards Sausa (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what further input you seek. The quote seems gratuitous, as I still do not see any particular significance for the quote and its context. The edit also inserted several word links that I would unhesitatingly remove if I came across them because they are either dictionary definitions or otherwise do not deepen the understanding of the subject article. Please refer to WP:Linking. --Ohconfucius¡digame!05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you re-added the {{recent death}} template to the above-captioned article. Note that the template's instructions are clear on when it is applicable based on edit frequency. It is not currently applicable to the article, so I removed it (leaving an edit summary explaining why). If you disagree, please give more substantive reasoning if you choose to re-add the template.
Well, that was fun - we each revert three times, you folks get the "win" (not really, we all lose) since Tony chimes in. Net loss for the project, since the reader loses for lack of some useful links. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy02:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you still see it necessary to link to NYC; I replaced the generic link to Mexico with a specific link to Mexican War of Independence. If we go to the sixth degree of separation, we'd be linking everything. NYC's half a continent away, and I'd say the link is beyond a rational three degree of separation. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text makes a direct comparison to NYC; a reader may well care to compare the two. It's also hard to argue the relevance of Mexico to LA. --Ckatzchatspy02:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add that even the most red-necked American knows what NYC is... If the comparison is what they want, they would go to the source article to see what basis the comparison was on. To have to wade through the NYC article to try find that seems to be problematic/punishing enough – a general disservice to readers. --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, that is the difference in our opinions. You seem to see it as a distraction; I see it as added value. Remember, the reader is under no obligation to actually follow the link, but we do not need to make it harder for those who want to. Saying that they can always search is fine for "old hands" like us, but not anywhere near as easy for the average reader - let alone those who are not especially computer-literate. --Ckatzchatspy03:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the reader knows how to navigate to an on-line citation (2 clicks away), he/she ought to be capable of finding 'New York City' on their own, if that is what they wish to do. As I said, even the roughest redneck will know what NYC is about. --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain the reason for removing a great number of wikilinks in the List of twin towns and sister cities in Ukraine. In my opinion, the links to the countries were the only thing that had to be removed as the flags already link there. However, I don't see any valid reason for dewikifying a number of important articles (Ukraine in the abstract), a number of cities (Moscow, Paris, Rome and some others became unwikified). And removal of the links to the articles about cities and towns makes this list senseless, as the cities and towns of Ukraine are the key to the list, and reader is interested in finding an article about the city in question. Please return the links to the cities back, it's too slow to return all these links without a script as I must have to check all the disambigunations again. Thanks — NickK (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I saw from your user page, you are removing all the links unless they pass the test, so I will try to explain more:
Relevance: Is the link-target sufficiently relevant and useful to link? (See WP:LINK.) In the context of sister cities both of the cities are relevant and useful enough to link, as the purpose of the article is provide the reader the list of these couples of partner cities
Specificity: Does the link lead to the most focused appropriate target? (Search for daughter articles and sections at the proposed target article.) Unless only a city district has a twin town but not the whole city, the link to the article about the city is specific enough, and in case of city districts I linked like Berlin-Steglitz-Zehlendorf
Uniqueness: Is the linked topic reachable—directly or indirectly—through another link in the vicinity? (If so, consider not linking.) No, after your edit no links to Ukrainian cities and towns left in the article, thus they are not reachable anymore. The cities and towns in question are not well-known for readers as well, so they have to be linkes.
WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get): Is the link-target clear and obvious to the reader? Yes, in the article on sister cities user expects to find links to both, and he obviously expect to go to the article about the city by clicking the link with the name of the city
These links pass all four tests and are vital for the article, so please explain why they were removed. Again thanks and regards — NickK (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Ohconfucius, I think you should ignore this warning; Ncmvocalist himself has been edit warring during the last 3 days or so, and not all of his edit summaries in his reverts are civil. Personally, I can't think of anything that suggests Ncmvocalist knows better than you. HeyMid (contribs) 10:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite clearly uninformed about the other incidents that Ohconfucius has been involved in. In regards to my edit-summaries, Heymid, could you please express your concerns about civility to the user in question (if you genuinely have concerns) rather than making unsubstantiated accusations on another person's talk page? Doing the latter is uncivil in itself. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Thank you McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
