User talk:Ohconfucius/archive08

DEFENDER OF HONG KONG

7:39 PM, Tuesday May 14, 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, 4 months and 14 days.

... Percentage ranges Format percentage ranges with one rather than two percentage signifiers: 22–28%, not 22%–28%. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

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

Need some advice

Hi, if you have time to chat, can I ask for your advice on something? Non-FLG related BTW--PCPP (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Paris tramway

Sorry, I'm on hollidays.

The only problem I saw was that Template:Paris tramway/transfer‎ links were incorrect.

Is it ok for you now?

BTW, if you have some time, could you check/upgrade Category:Paris public transport templates templates?

Gonioul (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice!

Hey, I loved your comments in the AfD discussion for the alleged 2009 film version of "My Fair Lady." Great fun! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Money Art

Your coin pun at this deletion discussion would have made me laugh and groan at the same time if that were physically possible. :) Somno (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi. I just noticed that you are not an administrator. Any reason for that? Would you be interested? (First, you'd need to enable your e-mail! ) —Wknight94 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good humour but in that grey zone between offensive and funny

Wondering what the pork was doing here. Cos, some people would feel that it was totally uncalled for (in spite of the nice apology) since you could have made your point without it, and others like me would have been a wee bit more careful! Cheers. :) Prashanthns (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong

To repair a dead link go to the Internet Archive and enter the url. For the majority of the time, it will be able to find the link at a prior date when basically a screenshot was taken, which can then be linked to within the article. If there is an available date, just click on it and copy the url and paste it back into the article in place of the old link. For the access dates, it's best to update them occasionally so that readers know that the links still work. Checking every few months or at least once a year is a good way to find the dead links and attempt to repair them. Let me know if you need further help on any of these. Otherwise, the article still looks to me like it meets the GA criteria. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

N0tability discussions

The baseball notability guidelines are under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, you may be interested in participating. Spanneraol (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking actions against Dilip

This guy obviously has no interest in cooperating with the wikipedia community. He accused Antilived (talk · contribs) of being a vandal and CCP propagandist for adding a source by Phoenix TV to Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China [1] and took him to ANI [2]. Additionally he claimed that the "Nine Commentaries" is a reliable source of criticism of the CCP.[3]. I will no longer hold this user in good faith.--PCPP (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Leung Chin-man appointment controversy

Nice job. :) F (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Gary Glitter

Thanks for your advice note. Did you edit only the references, and not any of my body copy changes? Earthlyreason (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• What I was trying to say was that I attempted to copy your changes back after I had fixed the refs. Apologies if I missed anything. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I've checked and it's fine. Earthlyreason (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your message. With all due respect to your excellent contributions to Wikipedia, I've had long experience with editors who blank massively without first seeking and obtaining consensus, as is our procedure at WP. From today's edits, you appear to be one of those. If and when you pledge to me you will abide by this thoughtful, considered manner of editing, you may post to my discussion page further. Otherwise, please post your opinions to other discussion pages rather than mine. Badagnani (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I do not need your permission to do anything here on wikipedia, nor am I obliged to pledge anything to you. I would remind you that consensus is not the only driving principle here on WP, WP:NPOV is a pillar, which the article appears to be violating through undue weight. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued conversation

Sorry if the Wikiquette request was alarming, I just wasn't comfortable with the inadvertent aggression expressed towards Badagnani by means of overstatement. I'm not sure what barbs you and have exchanged in the past, but I could not find tangible evidence on this talk page to support allegations of WP:ATTACK, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, or WP:OWN. He was not discourteous to any extent beyond good faith forgiveness. Irregardless, we all make mistakes from time to time, and I see no reason to pursue retribution.

With that aside, I'm intrigued by the fact that you are a Chinese-speaking contributor with 12,000+ edits. I'm interested in the possibility of collaborating to take this article up to featured criteria — if that is something you are also interested in, do let me know.   — C M B J   08:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just getting stuck into the article when I got hit smack in the face by the user you were referring to. His record speaks for itself, and his talk page is littered with examples of his aggression towards other users in food articles - what most people would find impossibly uncontroversial. If you are really interested in why I have an issue with said user, you may care to look at the diffs provided an invisible entry I made to your talk page. Of course I would be interested in bringing the article to GA or FA status. I'll be staying around despite the attacks. I've seen worse on the Falun Gong articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"His talk page is littered with examples of his aggression towards other users in food articles - what most people would find impossibly uncontroversial." That brought me to tears in laughter. But even if he does have a mixed record, he wasn't doing anything inexcusable; and has brought some 1,250 articles to Wikipedia over the course of 3 years.

I'll try to incite collaboration on the article's talk page as soon as I can. If you remove any content without merging it elsewhere, please note the revision diffs on the talk page.   — C M B J   10:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly rejoicing over the multiple disputes he has gotten himself into, but was pointing out the likely roots of the current dispute. Of course, there is his rather provocative way of doing things. Also, it takes two to tango, so I guess I am equally to blame ;-) I would add that I tend not to weigh editors contributions by the number of edits or pages started, but on the quality of the contributions and how they work with the community. Some, like our "friend", go around creating articles like amassing notches on their bedposts, yet cause so much friction and ill-will in the process that one might wish they were not there. But then, it takes all sorts to make a world. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of any official Olympic bid documents with more detailed information than this one?   — C M B J   12:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection of Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics was denied.   — C M B J   08:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Good work on cleaning up the talk page, BTW. We made a huge mess of it. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Attack at Beijing Drum Tower during 2008 Olympics

You are the latest in an ever evolving move-a-thon of the article. I'm surprised you have reverted it back to a title that reflects the "attack" as focused on the Americans. What is your reasoning for not including the Chinese tour guide also attacked and the fact that the man attacked the Chinese tour guide first. .:davumaya:. 10:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have reverted the title so it does not focus exclusively on the American victims. WWGB (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I accept the comments in that regard. However, kindly note my objection wasn't so much to the American vs Chinese (or not, as the case may be) victims, but the reference to the Beijing olympics, which I believed to be tangential at best and violated WP:NPOV at worst. Therefore I tried to shift the focus to [date] plus [action]. I found surprisingly little discussion in the talk pages about renaming the article, though I noticed numerous tell-tale redirects. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, the discussion on this is on the AfD pages which have proposed a litany of variations but none have taken hold. I have threatened AfD again on it but am letting the people sweat out and calm down after tempers have flared in the past few weeks. .:davumaya:. 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I hope so too, but unfortunately AfD is not a forum for determining name changes. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Someone else placed a helpme on your talkpage but didn't sign. You might want to check your history to see who it was. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Referencing

{{helpme}} Hi Ohconfucius... could you give me a little help with referencing please? In the Controversies and concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics article, Threat to sailing from Algae Bloom section, I have referenced sources more than once. I guess there may be an accepted notation for making multiple references to the same source..? Tsuchan (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources#Using the same citation again. Algebraist 00:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. I have amalgamated the references on the section concerned. It is done by giving the reference a name, then a reprise tag when subsequently calling it up again. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help. I will study the mark-up to use next time. Tsuchan (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

You may want to comment at this discussion as your talk page was involved, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Crashingthewaves.Nrswanson (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For checking my spelling. Spelling is definitly not my strong point, and often I don't know how much I actually misspell. I'll try to remember to run spellcheck before posting! -JWGreen (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Closed MedCab request

Thunderstruck45 has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry.[4] As such, I have closed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-27 2008 attack during the Olympics. If you need further assistance on this issue, please let me know and I'll see how I can help. Vassyana (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Computer programmers' useless toys

Excellent! We need to get serious about at least telling editors that they don't have to use citation templates. Perhaps a capped info package along the lines of the one I produced about the disadvantages of date autoformatting is appropriate ... but I've never used a citation template myself, so perhaps you have the knowledge and experience to produce it ...? I wish I'd known about the template before. Yes, at the very least its wording needs to be changed. But a far better way of getting the word out is to run the script (see capped info above), which automatically provides the relevant links to MOSNUM and CONTEXT in its edit summaries. Perhaps you'd like to try it? Let me know if you do and need assistance.

Installation and usage of date-autoformatting removal script

Instructions for installation

• EITHER: If you have a monobook already, go to it, click "edit this page", and paste in this string underneath your existing script:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

• OR: If you don't have a monobook.js page, create one using this title:

[[User:[your username]/monobook.js]]

Then click on "edit this page" and paste in at the top the "importScript" string you see three lines above here.

• Hit "Save page".
• Refresh your cache (instructions at top of monobook).
• You're ready to start.

Applying the script—it's very simple

• Go to an article and determine whether US or international format is used. (For this purpose, it's best to have selected "no preferences" for dates in your user preferences, which will display the raw date formats that our readers see. Otherwise, you'll need to check in edit mode.) Occasionally, you'll see that the wrong format is used (check MOSNUM's guidance on this carefully).
• Click on "edit this page". You'll see the list of script commands under "what links here". Click on either "delink all dates to mdy" (US format) or "delink all dates to mdy" (international format).
• The diff will automatically appear. Check through the changes you're making before saving them. If there are problems, fix them manually before saving, or cancel.
• Leave a note at the article talk page if editors need to negotiate which format to use, or need to be alerted to any other date-related issues.
• Click on "Save page": it's done.

Afterwards

• Respond politely and promptly to any critical comments on your talk page. If someone wants to resist or revert, it's better to back down and move on to improve other articles where WPians appreciate your efforts. NEVER edit-war over date autoformatting; raise the issue at WT:MOSNUM.

Notes

• [1] Treats only square-bracketed dates. The script removes square brackets only, which mostly involves the main text and footnotes; it's acceptable for citation-generated dates to be of a different format, particularly ISO (which must not be used in the main text).
• [2] Piped year-links ([[1989 in baseball|1989]]). On purpose, the script will not touch these.
• [3] Date-sorting templates in tables. As of August 23, a minor tweak must be made to the script (which will update automatically), to deal with the column-sorting template in tables. Please be aware of this in relation to Featured Lists and the like (i.e., hold off there until it's fixed). The "dts" and "dts2" templates are at issue, and can be identified in display mode by a small clickable item at the top of a column. This should be fixed soon.
• [4] Antiquity-related articles. Articles on topics such as ancient Rome should be treated with caution, since the script removes year-links as well, and some editors may argue that there's a case for retaining the simple year and century links from ancient times (e.g., 212). It's better to ask first in these cases. In any case, such articles contain few if any full dates.

And here, if you ever need to convince someone of the need to get rid of low-value bright-blue patches all over the place, is another information package:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for registered (Wikipedian) users who have set their date preferences and are logged in.
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

The consensus against date autoformatting is overwhelming. You may wish to peruse the following capped text to compare two examples, with and without date autoformatting. The DA is forced tot international style—the one pertaining in this particular article—to show all WPians how the blue dates are displayed to almost all readers. MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted, analogous to our highly successful guidelines for the use of varieties of English. The choice of style is audited during the running of the script to ensure that it is appropriate to the article (i.e., consistent, and country-related where appropriate).

Two examples for comparison

EXAMPLE 1

Original

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June. The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 June and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.

To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

DA-free

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June. The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.

To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

EXAMPLE 2

Original

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

DA-free

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

Tony (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Date un-linking

Could you be slightly more careful when you're doing date-unlinking work. In Margaret Thatcher you broke a link, and an image by changing September 11 to 11 September (in the context of the September 11 attacks) in text that was not actually being displayed in the article, but was piped, or captioned, with dates which were in the correct format. David Underdown (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• My apologies for the oversight. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mandy Tam baptism.jpg

The PUI noticeboard is for images that are marked as free but may not be. For images already marked non-free and used under a fair use claim, use {{subst:rfu}} if you think the image is replaceable and {{subst:dfu|reason}} if you think the rationale provided doesn't justify its use.

If replying, please copy your reply to my talk page (or use {{talkback}}) as I do not watchlist pages where I leave a message. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Date formats after autoformatting

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

date type of template

Hi - I'm interesting in your comments on User:Dmadeo/DA which I've been noodling with. Take a look if you're interested, please leave brief, civil and constructive feedback if you'd like. I think it addresses all the concerns I've seen brought up, but I could use some other opinions before I point it out to a larger audience at MOSNUM Thanks dm (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I've replied there dm (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments - I'm travelling so will be offline for a day or two dm (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HKEx.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:HKEx.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Date format poll confirmation

You recently contributed to a poll on date formats.[5] The option you supported won the poll but is now an option in a final poll to test support against the current version.[6] The poll gives full instructions, but briefly the choices are:

• C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
• R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

If you wish to participate or review the progress of this poll, you may follow this link. --Pete (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Derrick Sims' page

On 9/17/2008, "The River," a film where Sims was director of photography" was added to the internet movie database. His credit, along with others, are to be added within the coming week. Since there is no previous feature-length DP credit for Sims, it's taken a bit longer to be added. The same goes for the director. However, the film was added today, and that's justifiable reason that the filmmaker, Sims, is a viable filmmaker whose article should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chowningsferry (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics

I'm still willing to bring the article up to GA status. If we tackle one section at a time, things may progress more quickly.   — C M B J   03:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm with you. It's now been a few weeks and we should be able to look at it again more objectively. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 baby milk scandal

Please pause in your editing and join us at the talk page. NJGW (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's get consensus on how to continue forward before any of us edits more. NJGW (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE, we are not done yet. NJGW (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

STOP, we have not come to a resolution yet. I agree that some of those refs are bad (shouldn't use google cache etc), but you are now well past 3rr. NJGW (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you not being a little unreasonable here? I am updating the article with stuff that has little to do with the dispute we are having. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But you are ignoring the discussion and making changes related to the discussion. NJGW (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• The world doesn't stop spinning just because we're arguing, and you appear to be just trying to stop me from getting on and improving the article. However, I will say that if I do stop all changes, it will make it easier for me to revert to the un-templated version of the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that you seem to think that it's OK to revert a whole load of other people's revisions because of your single preference for citation format. You are already at 3rr just for the first mass revision, so maybe you should reconsider all this mass revision talk. NJGW (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Did I really revert three times already? well, you just got me shivering... Ohconfucius (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to sleep. Please don't make mass reversions, and try to come to an agreement with the people still awake. As for shivering at wp:3RR, well that's your prerogative. NJGW (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strange things are known to happen when people sleep, like I found. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issues

I have noticed you have reedited several entries to the 2008 baby milk scandal article. I disagree with you in regards to the what is pertains to copyright violations and the public domain. Please do not delete whole entries without consulting the rest of us. Thank you. Roman888 (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• It appears to me that you are not only ignorant of the principles of copyright, you are proceeding in a deliberate manner. I believe you are mistaken in your comprehension of what constitutes public domain. I have already rewritten the text you placed there once already, and continued re-insertion of copyright violating material will not be tolerated. Any further violation in this regard will be reported to administrators, Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Not only do are you the ignorant one in the "principles of copyright", you proceed to vandalise whole articles to fit within your narrow definition of copyright and public domain. You proceed to take out whole entries without making the effort to consult with other Wikipedians.

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to 2008 baby milk scandal. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.