User talk:Ohconfucius/archive29

DEFENDER OF HONG KONG

3:15 AM, Monday November 4, 2024

This user is a native of Hong Kong.

This user is a citizen of the United Kingdom.

This user lives in France.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 10 months and 4 days.

... Number signs Avoid the symbols # or № when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead, type "number", or "No.": Her album reached No. 1 in the charts, not Her album reached #1 in the charts. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

Removing references tag

Hi Ohconfucius! In this edit, you removed the <references /> tag, which produced an error. Could you please double check your AWB setup so you don't accidentally remove any more? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've just tried to reproduce the change, and realise what has happened. There's nothing inherently wrong with the code. It's what I did manually that seems to have caused the problem. :-( The rules correctly replace <references /> with {{reflist|30em}} and removes any intervening (unnecessary) line feeds. For short articles, I often double click to cancel the replacement (because a 30em ref column isn't necessary). However, in this case the removal didn't get cancelled because of a line feed between the header and the ref tag that got removed. I will have to go back through them just in case. Thanks for being vigilant in my place. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that the 30em parameter is not critical for most articles, I've now disabled that replacement to avoid further problems. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis and the change. I've been working through Category:Pages with missing references list and only saw this one edit. If there are more, I'll let you know. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Curly quotes missed

Hi, with this edit, you fixed the curly quotes “ in the infobox that preceded the words Cowes and Ryde, but missed the instance in the External links preceding the word Geograph. Also, you missed all three instances of ” and one instance of ’ --Redrose64 (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll look into improving the cleaning. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Double checking

Someone is making unexplained changes and learning how to hide the rap sheet. Did I miss some history along the way? Dl2000 (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seems weird. I've left the editor a TPM. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Script ready?

Is the script ready to go? I'm gonna download the new database dump and process it. Any new major changes I should know about in the last few months? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it's ready, and I'm using it right now. It now incorporates many fixes already in my general formatting script and Common terms scripts. So it does a lot of downcasing, punctuation fixes (like removing curly apostrophes and prime symbols). It removes a lot of overlinking, as it basically incorporates all the terms you see here, and more. It also unlinks top 7 countries (almost everywhere – possibly too radical for you), and does some clever unlinking of countries when they are chain-linked and the end of a line or inside parentheses; "mispiped" nationalities (e.g. "[[Germany|German]]" and "[[Pakistan]]i". As before, I'd be happy to modify this based on your feedback.

  And by the way, what specific strings are you scanning for? Any fix you want me to add to my regex? Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Specific strings? I was planning to try and find things to fix and make sure DMY/MDY is up to date and functioning well. Maybe adding some templates and to untagged articles. Same as before, but I don't use strings, cause I don't know how to use them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Anchor edit

Hi, Ohconfucius. It looks like you are using a script that does a lot of good work. One thing I noted, though, is that it goes in and changes anchors. As I'm sure you know, the whole idea of having an anchor is so that links to old section headers will not be broken. So anchors should never be changed like the anchor in this edit was changed. Just past line 100 you will note that a hyphen was changed to an ndash inside the anchor. That broke a link I have on my watchlist, so I have fixed it. Just wanted to make sure you knew about it so you could hopefully keep it from happening again. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. Template proliferation is causing this and other problems, compounded by a legacy script. I'll need to get someone to step into the script, whose owner is no longer around. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Whew, that's a doozy! It looks as if it's designed not to go inside templates, already. If that part's broken, then we have to ask what else might also be broken? Wish you good luck! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 10:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor changes

Hi, I see you're using a script to help you make many small MOS and similar changes. I (and other editors?) don't specially need to pay attention to this work which is probably useful. Could you possibly tweak your script to mark the changes as minor so I can filter them out? Would be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sure. FYI, I stopped it because the script's library of changes got much more comprehensive and I unchecked the box for transparency reasons. I haven't had many objections to the changes, so it's probably safe to mark them minor again. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

One link or two?

Hallo, in this edit you've changed Sandusky, Ohio (two links), to Sandusky, Ohio (one link) - along with other similar edits, and other dissimilar changes - "per WP:TIES, MOS:NUM, MOS:CAPS, MOS:LINK". I can't see where amongst those sources this change is mandated - I've always created two links like that when linking a US place, just as I would for Leeds, West Yorkshire. Could you show me where this is discussed? Thanks. PamD 06:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Unlike USA place articles, which are almost always [[City, State]], articles for UK places are not universally named according to the same convention. The assembled editors at the WP:MOS (and WP:Linking), myself included, generally frown upon "chain-linking" – that is the practice of having two or more consecutive links in any given string. This fails to give the reader a clear idea what the links are, and the additional link to the state is less germane to the topic at hand. It is a manifestation of overlinking. Having [[Sandusky, Ohio]] instead of [[Sandusky, Ohio|Sandusky]], [[Ohio]] has the advantage of not having two consecutive links in the given string. It also can't be misunderstood that, for example, Jay Cooke (whose article I have made no edits to) came from Sandusky and Ohio, as is possible to understand if one didn't know the former was a subset of the latter. In any event, the state (Ohio) in such instances is always of one order of magnitude less relevance to the subject than the city (Sandusky). In addition, it would always be possible (and more logical) for a reader to follow the subject matter – they are unlikely to leap from 'Jay Cooke' to 'Ohio' whilst bypassing Sandusky. As a note, I would generally remove the link to the county in the example you gave above. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • MOSLINK discourages bunched links, and encourages the linking of more specific, not less specific, targets. In both respects, the more specific place should be favoured over the more general, especially as the settlement article has a prominent link to Ohio, of course. Tony (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • You managed to get the message across in less than a third of the wordcount. Humpf! -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to watchlist this so have only just come to look for any response. Thanks, both, for your replies. I see I've been getting it wrong for years - but this is the first time I've noticed any of my links being changed. As I tell new editors, there's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia!

I've looked carefully at MOS:LINK, in particular WP:LINKSTYLE, and this isn't made very clear. There's an example of piping which shows a US town being piped to show just the town name, which isn't helpful on this point, and a section about the Irish Chess Championship which I suppose is relevant - except that in that case the single link gets to the appropriate article while the three links were all less specific. It might be helpful to add a specific point about placenames, to clarify this guideline. Perhaps, after the Irish chess example:

• Where a place's article title includes a wider location, do not make two separate links: [[Riverside, California]] rather than [[Riverside California|Riverside]], [[California]].

I suggest that would be a useful addition. PamD 09:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Why would a reader need to be presented with a link to California—unless perhaps at the actual article for Riverside California? Why would we want to bunch them together? Tony (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Kazandibi

	Kazandibi
	Thank you for copy-editing of Nebojša M. Krstić.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's my pleasure! -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The apostrophe

Maybe I will wish I had not asked. When I type article text I use the apostrophe key on my keyboard, which is this symbol' as in – for his family's honor.

When you go through an article, I see the words with an apostrophe being marked as changed, but nothing visible to my untrained eye. family's is family's before and after the edit. What has been changed? Is there something inadequate about the apostrophe key on my computer's keyboard? I see now that there is an apostrophe in the string of characters that can be inserted, like the em and en dashes. my computer family's

using the character from the wiki insert list family′s

Still looks the same to me. What is the difference and why is it important? Thanks! --Prairieplant (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, this was something that puzzled me too because I was initially unable to see the difference. Your two apostrophes above are indeed different. Looking at the list of characters that are converted by my script, there are maybe six different apostrophes that are used in some form or another elsewhere, and which all render in exactly the same way in output, or they may render differently depending on your browser. But you should be able to see the differences in edit mode. I include them here for information: [ ‘`´’′]. According to our manual of style, we should only use the straight apostrophe [']. I trust that answers your question. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 11:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Making the apostrophes big and bold makes it a bit easier to see the difference between family's vs. family′s. GoingBatty (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, now I know there are lots of apostrophes. My confusion now is that the one from my own computer's keyboard appears straighter (more vertical) than the one from the wiki Insert list. Putting that aside, I typed a string of seven of them, and learned that a string of 7 from my own computer shows as 2 in final text, and words typed after show as enlarged and italicized, where the seven from the Insert bar show as seven apostrophes. Powerful difference. I deleted my experiment from here, as many confusions arose with italics and bold in the text following the string of seven apostrophes. Get the point, but wish there were simply one apostrophe, to make my life simpler. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I tried typing each mark successively in the search box, to find that we have ` (grave accent), ´(acute accent), ’ (apostrophe), ′ (prime symbol), '(quotation mark). I'm thankful that somebody had the infinite wisdom to declare for using only straight quote marks. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The symbol ′ found in the "Insert" list between ″ and ≈ is not an apostrophe but a prime, unicode U+2032. It's used as a shorthand for certain units of measurement, such as foot (the length), minute (the time) and minute (the angle). The character to its left, i.e. ″ is similarly not a double quote but a double prime, unicode U+2033. The true apostrophe ' is Unicode U+0027. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know how to type in Unicode. Is there a look up table, like the character map in windows, or must type out upper case U and then 2033? And is this worthwhile if other software catches it? Always something new to learn. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I just looked again at a recently changed page, and the ones in the left column (from my computer's key board) look like the apostrophe in your big and bold list. In the right column (fixed) they now look like single quotation marks. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Potter%27s_Field_%28Peters_novel%29&diff=576090269&oldid=575998022

This is confusing! ---Prairieplant (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I see the one on your keyboard as a "curly" apostrophe, and my script replaces it with a "straight" apostrophe. I actually quite like the curly one, but I just wonder why even computer manufacturers can't get to grips with harmonising their keyboard output, which I would expect to be uniform. Incidentally, I work with both PC (HP) and Mac, and my keyboard output for that character seems the same. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit to "Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court"

Hi Ohconfucius! I undid your resent edit to Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. I think that the flag icons are appropriate for the list as it is a list of states that are parties to a treaty. Furthermore, removing the templates broke the display of some of the names (i.e. {{Flag|Kingdom of the Netherlands|name=Netherlands}} was changed to Kingdom of the Netherlands|name=Netherlands). Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. – Zntrip 18:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message. I intentionally targeted the removal the flags and their associated links as these were unfocussed and therefore not germane. The abundance of flags in lists of countries may have become a bit of a custom and institution, but these appear to be in violation of MOS:FLAG, in that I don't see how "the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". Obviously, there is some subjectivity here, but once the country names were listed, the flags are purely decorative. The {{flag}} links to the country article are also inappropriate; the links are not to an article about the criminal courts or the legal system in said country. We see 'generic' links all too often but people seem to do so "because its always how it's been done" or because "it's pretty to have a list full of colours", and I just wish people would step out more and question the utility. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted several other edits to similar lists. I have to say, you must be more careful when using script-assisted fixes, as some of the "fixes" are anything but. For instance, at the very bottom of this edit, you unlinked a word in the "see also" section. – Zntrip 18:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Has anyone every questioned why the hell does "poverty" need to be linked in the article? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Normally in main text to link to Poverty would be undesirable (diluting the wikilink system, teaching readers to ignore it, target too general to be useful, WP is not a dictionary, etc). But in the "See also" section, it's probably worth keeping as a link to a related article. However, is a more specific section or daughter-article target available?

Zntrip, I can't see any reason to retain that eye-glazing column of pretty postage-stamp icons in those tables. Please explain why they are not purely decorative, since the information is in the adjacent text. Often, flags are worse than useless in information terms: they're misleading—the Australian and NZ flags, for example, are indistinguishable at that size (even at larger sizes). Tony (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have just now made the links on that page more targeted, whilst at the same time removing the flagfest. I hope you will agree that this is more optimal in terms of what information the reader will be looking for. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I see several issues that have been raised thus far:

1) I think you misunderstood my point about removing the link to "poverty" in the "see also" section. I'm not saying that it has to be there. The problem is that you removed the link but not the word. The "see also" section is exclusively for internal links. I was simply making the point that you need to be careful when making script-assisted edits en masse.

2) Linking to countries is entirely appropriate as they are the subject of the list. A list of X should link to each individual X. This is not a list of legal systems, it is a list of countries.

3) While I can appreciate the flagiconocalst point of view, the fact of the matter is that flagicons exist and this is what they are used for. The Manual of Style provides that they "may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." In any itemized list of states the flagicons become thus relevant and pertinent. As we are all aware, there are numerous lists such as these, including list of sovereign states, member states of the United Nations, and list of parties to the Geneva Conventions. If you want to challenge the use of flagicons, changing this article is not the appropriate method and this page is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. – Zntrip 05:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• The article is about laws. Therefore I contend that the link is relevant and germane. Please tell me why you believe my focussed list is inferior to the one you prefer. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be instructive to formulate a general rule for lists of states. The list in question is in no way substantively different from any other list of states, such as the ones I have previously mentioned. How are you making the determination that this list is about laws whereas list of sovereign states and member states of the United Nations are about the states themselves? A list of states in these contexts is invariably related to law, but it is also related to diplomacy, foreign affairs, international organizations, and whatever the subject of a treaty may be (i.e. trade, the environment, contracts, etc.). In place of making a rather arbitrary determination of the predominant subject, it is much better to simply link the main article about the state. – Zntrip 19:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Or not link to the country article at all. It's not the sort of article that would incite readers to click on individual countries articles unless their specificity could be demonstrated. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

I was wondering, do you have a script that doesn't to dmy or mdy compliance with just the other special fixes? I'd like to try that today. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Try User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources.js GoingBatty (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• There are a number of js scripts (not AWB) that are listed here that you are welcome to try out. Most (except the one GB mentioned above) are style-related. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I like AWB ones so much better. Oh and for the Unlinker, can it be modified to avoid templates and See Also sections? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't. That might not be the case if I were a programmer. The js scripts give me so much more flexibility and specificity compared with AWB, based on my non-existent programming skills. I've already incorporated as many of the rules from my others scripts into the current AWB 'dmy' module as I dare in light of potential false positives, but I'm not as comfortable with the protection levels in AWB – for example, it allows changes to text within block quotes. So that's what's preventing me from adding more.

  I don't know how to write rules around some templates. Simpler ones can be protected in my script, but I don't know how to execute these in AWB. It can get horribly complex as we now have so many darned templates, and what's more, people often nest these. Most of my scripts, except for Common Terms script, have different levels and specificity of protection adapted to the job at hand, but I don't know how to effectively protect Infoboxes, for example. I can additionally make my regex rules gradually more specific and contextual, but that's the best I can do. The CT script is the simplest, as it only removes double square brackets around any given string. It has no protection whatsoever because the links and surrounding text already provide the context.

  Good point about the 'See also' sections. I could probably incorporate protection for everything after "==See also==", but I'd just comment that if the script has removed a link of a very common term in the 'See also' section, I usually remove the entire line manually. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Most_trafficked_Hong_Kong-related_articles

What are the most trafficked HK-related articles that don't yet have ZH-YUE? I ask because if there are ZH-YUE stubs of them, it will make ZH-YUE more visible and there will be more pressure on it to be correct. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• The most heavily trafficked articles relating to Hong Kong are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong/Popular pages, but I don't know the corresponding for zh-yue. Might need to consult the people at Wikidata for that. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:IRE-IRL

I and another editor have left a message here concerning your script-assisted edits. Could you please address this before using the script further? Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And point of note Irish articles use Hiberno-English not British English, as per WP:ENGVAR as your bot also adds. Murry1975 (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the specific nature of the complaint as I believe that I have not tagged any Irish article {{Use British English}} in recent months. Do you have a specific edit of mine that you are referring to? I have switched to using a more nationality-neutral {{EngvarB}}. And BTW, have you read the script documentation, or the template documentation? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 11:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You also have been removing the piped link to Republic of Ireland given by Ireland claiming WP:MOS however in all the instances I saw you simply removed the wikilink entirely; you did not refactor the link. WP:IMOS applies in these cases to avoid confusing readers. Please not this when making edits to Irish topics as the distinction between the state and the island needs to be retained. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, we've been having a very animated discussion these last few days at WT:IRE-IRL on the exact manner of unlinking such Easter eggs, where I strongly argued that we should respect the underlying piped target. However, the consensus is that they should be, without exception, unlinked to 'Ireland' and not 'Republic of Ireland'. So that discussion led me to believe there's no issue, and now here we are... I think you guys ought to hash it out there on that aforementioned talk page and get back to me. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

IRMOS has virtually zero status, in my view, on this matter. Tony (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I did eventually read all the ANI. The topic appears to have been archived and the ANI search link does not work for some reason so it was a bit of a problem to find it. However, when you are removing the piped link and leaving the incorrect name of the country that is a problem which is exactly why WP:IMOS hashed out the matter in the best way possible quite some time ago. That was to use the proper name of the country except where there may be confusion with Northern Ireland depending on the context. For the examples I saw, had you removed the piped link and left Ireland instead of Republic of Ireland I think it would have been acceptable. ww2censor (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Careful with that axe, Eugine

[1] 88.104.26.129 (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Axe? It's more like a sponge, surely... ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hildegard Björck

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your great contribution to the project through your script-assisted editing (irrespective of the IRL-IRE thing). Thanks, Tóraí (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, and thanks also for your patience. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Use dmy dates question

Hi there! Why did you add the "Use dmy dates" template to Miguel Álvarez Castro (which I just created)? There are no dates involving months or days anywhere in the article. Just curious what your process is or if there's a policy about this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Take a look at Fäbodristning when you got time. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Nour El-Refai and Barna Hedenhös. Your input is always appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Disp=flip

I reverted your A380 disp=flip change to cabin altitude because it is a special case that needs to override MOS. In aviation altitude is always in feet and is never converted, although the article and the plane itself are metric the altitude is a global convention. The A380 will even have it's altimeter in feet, to do otherwise would scramble the FL system among other things. Yes, it's inconsistent, because I am European I climb mountains in metres and fly in feet, irritating but that's just life. Ex nihil ^(talk) 23:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oh boo!! My pilots always tell me the altitude in both. Just looks ridiculous. :-( -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sticking your nose where it doesn't belong

RE: Zoie_Palmer article

If the SOURCE of a reference publishes a date as "November 27, 2011" — it is not for you to change it to "27 November 2011."

You need to learn the difference between respecting as-is original work vs. willy-nilly changes based on YOUR preferences.

Go back and reverse the "fixes" on the referenced article dates that you ( and I don't use this term loosely ) fucked-up. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• I may have got it wrong on that occasion, but I don't appreciate you addressing me in such an arrogant and uncivil fashion. To write what you wrote indicates strongly that you failed to assume good faith. To err is human, and a simple query would have got you what you wanted fixed, but your rudeness was completely unwarranted. If you choose to present yourself again here in such a manner, please be assured that any request or complaint will be ignored or summarily deleted. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake was to use a profane word to express in a to-the-point manner what I thought of your unsolicited and unwarranted intrusion in the article. For that, I apologize. But as for suggesting that I am "arrogant" -- tsk, tsk -- everything about yourself in your User page is the definition of arrogance (with self-love topping the froth). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyxis Solitary (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius, your edit summaries used in the above comment are unacceptable and uncalled for. Please take care to not communicate in such a manner in the future, as it is detrimental towards other contributors and the project as a whole. Regards, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

  (talk page stalker) Lighten up, pal, as I am one of those "other contributors" and I say you've made a hasty generalization. I see more things comical in this discussion than I see things "detrimental". Either all of you get your bums in gear... or take a much needed WikiHoliday (briefly, of course... I do miss the all the fun ;>) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WT:DAB#Proposal for a new rule for media adaptations and multimedia franchises

The proposal concerning the franchises and primary topic criteria has been started. If you are interested with this matter, please join in discussion to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Script bug

Hi Ohconfucius,

Just a minor thing: At diff, the script delinked "5 July". -- 签名 _sig at 06:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think that's a bug - User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates states that the script "delinks all dates and date fragments, including day-month strings". GoingBatty (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Carin Hjulström

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Alice Munro year links were good

In your WP:MOS fixes, you unlinked numerous links to what you thought were years. However, they were not links to years, but links to "year in literature" with a pipe to hide the "in literature" part of the phrase. See WP:YEARLINK, which even mentions an example of this sort. It's probably easiest to fix this by reverting your edit, then running your script again with the year-link-fix part omitted. Choor monster (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oh yes I've been removing such links thinking they are undesirable in that they violate WP:SEAOFBLUE. The high density of links in that section make these the logical ones to be removed. Also, I don't actually see exactly what you see in WP:YEARLINK, as I believe these deal specifically with 'year' articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, 2007).

  I see links (like the ones removed) all over articles about authors, and I realise it's quite common practice. But the links are not exactly intuitive. Of course, one would not be wrong to expect a link to a 'year in literature' article in which a seminal work was created. These should be put in the 'See also' section, but I feel such blanket use of links that I removed is of no great help to the reader hidden inside a year link. I'm tempted to leave the article unlinked as it is, but feel free to restore that section if you disagree with my reasoning and feel strongly about preserving those links. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 19:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• • What I saw in WP:YEARLINK was "so too may 1787 in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year." In other words, linking to the year alone is bad, but the narrower year+concept is acceptable. I have no feelings about the matter either way. Choor monster (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Scripts

We have had this conversation before, but can you make sure you link to everything you are actually changing as Flags aren't covered by any of links or mentioned in your edit summary. Also i probably am wrong but should the dmy dates tag not remain as May 2013 rather than being changed to October 2013. Blethering Scot 20:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - The documentation at Template:Use dmy dates states "After being tagged, and bearing in mind article evolution, periodic script or bot runs clean up formats, correcting any new introductions since its last visit, and updating the visit date on the {{'''Use dmy dates'''}} template." Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for the copyedits at Francisco Rafael Arellano Félix. As always, your work is appreciated. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rigor mortis

..is not spelled with a u. You may need to amend the parameters of your automated process[2] DrKiernan (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Date formatting for references

Ohconfucius, Thank you for your contributions to WP. I certainly appreciate your work in attempting to unify the date formats appropriately in articles. I have a substantial disagreement however with changing the format of dates in references from YYYY-MM-DD. Per MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:Citing_Sources#Citation_style the all numeric format is appropriate in references. References should be as concise as possible and spelling out entire names of months often twice in a single reference is unnecessary. Also note WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference". This appears to be the case in this edit Diff which I am reverting (assuming good faith). Please note WP:TIES that you mentioned in your edit summary points to WP:STRONGNAT which specifically states, "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references or in tables, even in articles with national ties, if otherwise acceptable." I think it is important that the issue of date formatting in references be discussed on a general basis and propose the YYYY-MM-DD format for all retrieved/accessdates and to be the standard for all dates in reference lists. I realize your talk page is not the appropriate forum but I thought I would start here and perhaps you could point me in the right direction for this discussion in a larger way (new or ongoing). I also am interested in your input. Again I want to express my appreciation for your efforts in bringing some order to dates on WP. I feel ambiguous dates are an anathema and strongly support a nationally appropriate full text date style in the text of articles. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your long and detailed note. I work through a high volume of articles, using work lists derived from various methods. I do try to ensure that conversions of properly formatted articles like the one you found do not occur, but there is no sure fire way of detecting these. Occasionally, some slip through the net due to the nature of my workflow. I thank you for your attention, and will redouble my efforts to prevent recurrence. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Member of Parliament

The proper terminology is Member of Parliament -- per Wikipedia article itself -- not member of parliament!! Please undo this mistake. Quis separabit? 19:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• You don't cite a diff, but from your contributions, I would say my change (which you reverted here) was not a mistake. A person is "a member of parliament" just like a person is "a doctor". When referring to the person as "a member of the Irish Parliament", it would be correct to capitalise the word "Parliament" because parliament is specific to the one in Ireland. However, the membership remains generic, so the word "member" is correctly in lower case. IFF you want to refer to a person who is an MP for a specific seat, then it would be correct to write "Margaret Thatcher was the Member of Parliament for Finchley" because her membership is specific and part of her title; also there is little doubt that "Parliament" here implies the British Parliament. I would also certainly not make the link to the Member of Parliament to prove your point, which is fallacious – oh, and "Member" is capitalised here most probably because all WP articles begin with upper case, including "dog" and "doctor". I trust this address your concern. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 23:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think OC is right here, although some writers still carry the habit of upcasing. MOS says to downcase for "the past three presidents of the US", for example. There are currently 565 members of parliament—seems to be a smoother read in unmarked form, as distinct from the titular "President Bush". Tony (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Script changing titles of cited works

Hi. I noticed at least one error in your recent script-assisted edit of Bangkok.[3] It changed the title of the work, "Embassy to the Eastern courts of Cochin-China, Siam, and Muscat : in the U. S. sloop-of-war Peacock during the years 1832-3-4" to "Embassy to the Eastern courts of Cochin-China, Siam, and Muscat : in the U. S. sloop-of-war Peacock during the years 4 March 1832". I've reverted that change. I'm not sure about (incorrect) punctuation in such titles—should they be changed or preserved? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ohconfucious, I just wanted to ask a question on the same subject. I noticed this edit - are we not supposed to include the publishers? –anemoneprojectors– 10:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going by what it says at Template:Citation: "* publisher: The name of the publisher. Omit terms such as Publishers, Co., Inc., Ltd., etc., but retain the words Books or Press. Not normally included where the publication is a periodical which has its own Wikipedia article (e.g. Newsweek, Billboard)." I've underlined the relevant part to give it a little personal emphasis. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice work on Lou Reed! bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Filippo Drago

Dear Ohconfucius, would you help me in creating the article about the pharmacologist Filippo Drago? You moved the article from the main to the articles for creation. How can the page be edited and moved to the main stream?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchemc (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Pchemc:I moved it to where it belongs because the article is not yet ready for main space. I am not convinced, from looking at the sources, that the subject is notable. The quality of sources from a biographical viewpoint is inadequate, and I would invite you to study carefully WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V, with a view to adding more substantive biographical citations. Once you feel that the article is ready, then you may request a move at Requested moves. I fear that if the article is moved back before it fully complies with our policies, it will be deleted. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Real source of ad hominem

I'd just like to point out that it was GiantSnowman who was using the ad hominem, not me. Check this edit summary. I admit I could have added something like " ... before using it" in my reply for clarity. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• @HandsomeFella: Er, yes. I see now. It didn't look good, and what you confessed to being more desirable would have been a lot lot better. My opinion is that one incivility often starts a spiral of incivilities and further insults, and for the subsequent user to say "the other guy did it first" is not really an excuse. Something that started as a simple disagreement can degrade into a vicious feud months down the line, resulting in community bans and arbcom actions. Nobody wins. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 17:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This wasn't exactly "the other guy did it first", or tit-for-tat, or anything like that. It was rather that I thought his use of the word – in addition to it being an obvious personal attack – made me question whether he knew what it really means. I can't see that there is anything hypocritical in any of my posts. (Can you?) But I do wish I had been clearer, because, as you say, it didn't look good. Thanks for your understanding. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

EngvarB

Hi. You added category EngvarB to an article and I am curious to know what is the purpose of distinguishing articles as unAmerican. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to edit mainly Irish articles. I am currently working through Irish articles with my script, which tags and then helps to ensure consistency of spelling in the article. My script will convert spellings that are not commonly used such as "favor", "center" into forms more familiar to certain readers in accordance with WP:ENGVAR. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nationalities for Grammy Award lists

If you are going to remove the flags/nationalities from all of these lists, you should probably remove the information in the lead about nationalities as well. It would have been nice to discuss this at the Grammy Award task force first. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

AB, I've been watching that article. Just why scarce horizontal room was consumed by a thick column of US flags (and the country-name in text, if you please) is something I can't determine. Even if the countries varied, why not just write the names rather than inserting pretty decorations that don't mean much? Tony (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I am just asking that if information is going to be removed from the list, that the accompanying details in the lead also be removed. Otherwise, it does not make sense to discuss nationalities in the lead when the subject is never addressed later. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I just don't see the point you make about nationalities in the lead. Presumbly you mean the sentence" "Award-winning songs have been performed by American artists more than any other nationality, though they have also been performed by musicians or groups originating from Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom." I see nothing wrong or inconsistent in leaving such sentence in place, as it simply an observation or a fact. It neither states nor suggests that nationalities of the artists are determinant factor for the recipient which is what the flag implies. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Leads are meant to summarize details presented throughout the article. Keeping a sentence like the one you just mentioned is no longer reliable. The reader has no idea which artists are from what countries... You are making major changes to Featured lists. If information is being removed from articles, the leads need to be amended appropriately as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree. Such a sentence doesn't make it unreliable. It would have been simpler to have supported that sentence with a citation in the first place, but that can now still be done as you seem to believe it's rendered necessary by my removal. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• But there are no references in the lead to verify nationalities. Saying an artist from Ireland won the award does not tell readers which artist is Irish.. With the nationalities column missing, readers are left unable to decipher the nationalities information presented in the lead. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• maybe not, but you seem to be setting up a whole chain of verification, creating work for yourself as well as the risk of WP:OR. Having the nationality column and the flag doesn't prove the artists is of a particular nationality anyway, it just serves as an indicator. Such a collation seems like the sort of fact that would have been observed and I would be surprised if it hadn't been written about by one music journalist or another. Then there should be a source that you can cite, then there's no problem. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure I am understanding. I don't mind if nationalities are being removed from the articles, but it is problematic to remove nationality info from the tables and leave nationality information in the leads. Nationality information should be removed completely, unless there are sources indicating nationality details for any given award. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Flight Global

Hi Ohconfucius, just want to raise the point regarding User:Ohconfucius/test/Sources subscript1.js that not all Flightglobal articles are sourced from Flight International, as the website brings together various publications that also include the Airline Business, Air Transport Intelligence, etc. Appreciate your work. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll adjust the script accordingly. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lines

Please stop the changes while a discussion is active. Plowing into this is incivil and insulting. What is the hurry? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Why? The lines are in violation of guidelines, and no amount of further filibustering or irrational argumentation on user talk pages can change. And how is applying guidelines uncivil and insulting? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It is incivil and insulting to go and make the changes while a good faith discussion is ongoing. You're making it sound like a guideline is gospel and cannot be challenged. Guidelines are suggestions. They are not policy and they do not need to be applied universally without exception. I object to the change and on behalf of the project I feel that discussion is appropriate so that the change is applied properly and it is considered a necessity for some technical or overpowering need. Every bit of formatting throughout Wikipedia is a result of someone's preference. While a discussion may have taken place deprecating the use of the line (and I would appreciate a link to the discussion that formed that consensus), the line is useful in making a distinction between features. There is a line under every section heading so the lines themselves cannot be so abhorrent that they cannot be allowed to exist. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Mughal-e-Azam cleanup

Why change the money/number units? Now it does not match the sources. You changed some, but not all lakhs and crores to millions, billions, and even 100,000s. There are even some mixed units within single sentences now. Please review your work and make sure that it is correct and consistent. BollyJeff | talk 03:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA

You recently contributed to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Commas in metro areas. Following a recent related RFC on the wording used at MOS:COMMA in relation to geographic names, a new wording has gathered some support and I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion of the proposal, which may interest you. —sroc 💬 08:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Naim Audio amplification

The DYK project (nominate) 00:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Regina Lund

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

NAIT [sic]?

Hi, I don't understand the {{sic}} added in this edit. "NAIT" appears in that quote exactly as it does elsewhere in the article. Am I missing something? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• I thought I needed to replicate the capitalisations per quote. If not needed, then yes it should be removed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I guess you mean that it's sometimes referred to as the "Nait" in the article; but it's also called NAIT, including three other times in the same paragraph, and in the article's title. So I've gone ahead and removed the sic, but if I'm still missing something, feel free to revert. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. In the article, I have tried to use the block caps "NAIT" as the acronym and the brand, but "Nait" for the actual product (including the first, which doesn't have any other name). Do you think I'm making too fine a distinction? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I had just scanned the article very quickly and didn't notice the different usages. No, I don't think it's too fine a distinction. And, as I said, if you prefer the sic, feel free to restore it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll mull it over. I probably won't restore, but will instead try making things clearer. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Intern Weblink

Hallo Ohconfucius, on this site the assistend have delet sign from ( Self-Transcendence 6 & 10 day to this Self-Transcendence 6 & 10-day . And ist was never avaible. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Chinmoy&diff=next&oldid=571654480 Thanks--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that my edit caused a broken link. However, I'd note that the article is incorrectly titled because "10 day" is grammatical nonsense. The correct title per MOS:HYPHEN is "Self-Transcendence 6- & 10-day [races]". I've now moved the article accordingly. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Naim pre @ 2013.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Naim pre @ 2013.png, File:Naim PSU.png, File:Naim integrateds @ 2013.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a work in progress. I created the images recently for articles I'm working on, and I do not appreciate another editor coming along less than two months after their creation to determine that my images have "no forseeable use". I also don't appreciate my talk page being plastered with acres of templates. Space is not an issue as far as content is concerned. Instead of targeting recent files, the nominator should concentrate on older files that are unused. You made no attempt to discuss any of the deletions with me, the creator, and you have now wasted both your time and mine with your indiscriminate actions. Thanks for your attention. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:20110614ITNalt.GIF

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:20110614ITNalt.GIF, 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. Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Are you kidding me? You don't seem to be at all knowledgeable yet you go around templating regulars and indiscriminately deleting files that you feel waste space. The deletion rationale makes no sense whatsoever. FYI, the file is a screen grab from Wikipedia, and is by definition GFDL-compliant. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Momčilo Gavrić]

If [4] is really an alt spelling of his name you really ought to put than in his article. Your script also failed to preserve the cap. SpinningSpark 16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• yes, thanks. The regex engine doesn't recognise "č" as being part of the alphanumeric string, so it saw "mom" replaced it with "mother". I actually caught the other errors caused by the script, but I missed that one. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please notice ip 111.243.0.198 , 114.39.7.129

Hi , Please notice, ip user 111.243.0.198 and ip 114.39.7.129 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.243.0.198 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.39.7.129, Vandalism a lot of articles , please stop these ip user , thank youMBINISIDLERS (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@MBINISIDLERS: - Looks like User:Tom Morris posted a message on each IP's talk page about the same time you were posting here. GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of NAD 3020

Hello! Your submission of NAD 3020 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles removed for WP:International law to do list

I've removed the following articles from the Article requests section of the To Do list of Wikipedia:WikiProject International law as you have added the articles and information. I am letting you know about this as I can't really make a call as to whether they should be added to the Expand section. If you feel any of those articles should have been moved there, please add them.

• 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
• 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation
• 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation
• 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
• 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf
• 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Identification

Thank you for the additions. IMHO (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I see you made edits, but I think I should have left this in Good Olfactory's talk page. Have a good day. IMHO (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)