User talk:Ohconfucius/archive13

DEFENDER OF HONG KONG

10:07 PM, Wednesday May 15, 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 15 days.

... Ampersand The ampersand (&) substitutes for the word and. In normal text, and should be used instead: January 1 and 2, not January 1 & 2. Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations, such as The Tom & Jerry Show or AT&T. Ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion in tables, infoboxes, and similar contexts where space is limited. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

User:Ohconfucius/Globes

FLG

Hi. I was just wondering if you still wanted to explore the options that are available with fixing the FLG article. I read your rant and liked it. Colipon+(T) 18:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would if it were like Urumqi riots. I held the fort on my own there for months. It's no fun, fighting that lonely fight. After I stopped I felt my stress levels decreased noticeably. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a mediator there now. It might turn out interesting. See if you want to join in at Talk:Falun Gong.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your expertise would be more than necessary at that talk page right now. You are certainly not alone this time. Colipon+(T) 16:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Urumqi riots

I temporarily undid this because it linked to a redlink... not sure if it was just because of a spelling error or something, but I figured I'd remove it until it's fixed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you just created 2009 Xinjiang civil unrest. Are you planning on expanding it? As it is, it's a word-for-word copy of what Susan L and I wrote at East Turkestan independence movement, which is generally discouraged; furthermore, there's not much use linking to it as a "main article" if it doesn't say anything beyond what's already in the ETim article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally unexplained revert, not even an edit summary. Why did you do this? Please don't edit war. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal here for solving the dispute and preserving your article. Please comment if you have a moment. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, it's been so busy there this morning there, and we have been talking cross-purposes. You will have gathered by now that you said "no point having a {{main}} link when the so-called "main" article has no more information than this one. you can re-add if that article is ever expanded, but ther eis no reason for it now", and I put it back after I had finished creating the relevant article. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

On 6 July, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article July 2009 Ürümqi riots, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Urumqi photo

Hi, it appears the photo included in the article does not fit any of the criteria in WP:NONFREE at this time, but I don't want to edit war over it. Let me know if you think otherwise and tell me what part of the policy you think complies. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am aware that FAIRUSE does not equal NONFREE. However, fair use is often justifiable when there are no non-free alternatives, which I believe to be the case here. Additionally, it seems you were correct about the image -it was misattributed to the wrong incident by the source, and I have since put it up for deletion. I appreciate your cool head. :-) Ohconfucius (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I deleted the image per your tagging...I assume what you meant is that it wasn't actually a photo of the Jul 5 riots, but of something else? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, thankyou Ohconfucius (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this revert. You have probably noticed already, but this user has been edit warring with this image across multiple pages and trolling this article's talk page (especially at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Image). I reported him for edit warring here, if you'd like to comment; normally I don't mind waiting a bit, but now I'm hoping we can get him blocked quickly because he's being disruptive across a number of pages that all have many thousands of eyes on them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

what's "trolling"?Seb az86556 (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC) nevermind. found it. But the troll is back it seems Seb az86556 (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Urumqi riots talk page

See Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Archived. I haven't used MiszaBot before so I don't know if this is a problem, but you might want to check since you're the one who set up the auto-archiving. (Also, if we do keep this manual archive, we should probably add an archive navbox at the top of the talk page.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Ürümqi Barn"star"
		Thanks for all your work maintaining the article July 2009 Ürümqi riots during its time on the main page. This has been a difficult and thankless task, working at a frenetic pace for 4 days straight so far (I, for one, have been getting very little sleep), and it's only been thanks to coordinated efforts and discussion from numerous editors that the article has been kept as neutral and informative as possible. This is the most collaboration I've done, with the largest number of editors at once, since I have joined Wikipedia, and I think the results are showing; while it's not perfect, when my friends and family ask me about what's going on in Urumqi, I have been more comfortable recommending this article than any other source. The work is far from over, but now that this article is off the main page I think it's finally time to thank the editors Seb az86556, Colipon, Jim101, Ohconfucius, Benlisquare, Simonm223, and Jinhuili for all their contributions; while we had disagreements, I think each of these editors has been particularly active and has made real efforts to improve the article.rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

help/mediate

please give your input on Qiuzheyun's edits, specifically continued insertion of the word "terrorism" ino July 5 Urumqi riots article. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pls give me your definition of "event", since I personally believe that since Reuters have made formal response on official blog and NYT changed the caption of a published picture, it eligible to be called a "event".Helloterran (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

sinograms for name?

[[1]] < Quick question: why does this name need to be in sinograms when no other name in the article is given in Chinese? thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The two pieces of news seems important for one indicate the roits are prepared and another tells the robs came from places outside Urumqi, although the reports may not necessarily be true. -Sofoes (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Usually for subjects which have an article, I would pass on the sinograms and let the link do the talking. For an individual without a WP article, it is often nigh impossible to know the actual name of the person without resorting to the source. Chinese names are so ambiguous even in pinyin with accents, is not infallible. For that reason, I believe it is useful to have sinograms in the first appearance, mirroring the practice for linking. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kadeer edit warring

if that photo-thing really gets into an edit-war, could you initiate the proper procedure, I'm not familiar with that yet. Thanks! Seb az86556 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

susan boyle article

Hi Ohconfucius,

You recently changed the susan boyle article citing Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Actually the fact that she is a virgin is not a point of view but a fact that she has herself admitted to the world's media. For that reason I have reverted the article to include the information that I added yesterday.

Regards, Peter Shipton Petershipton (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• How you put that in reminds me of the tabloid style that I try very carefully to avoid in the context of an encyclopaedia. I feel that her virginity, self-confessed or otherwise, is not relevant to her biography. To include it therefore, would be inappropriate. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Jean-Claude Mézières

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Jean-Claude Mézières/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Drama minimisation?

Can you explain to me how doing something you know I disagree with [2] is drama minimisation? Kevin (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go. We are concerned that there was no rationale for doing the action in the first place. We are trying to stop this becoming a drama by returning to the status quo. Let's start a discussion on whether the page should be blanked. To help with that, could you please provide the diff to the original request to blank the page. Thanks.  HWV258  05:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. Can't be bother arguing this any further. Kevin (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In general and although there are exceptions, if something concerning our users happens off-wiki, it stays off-wiki. What you did probably falls within WP:BOLD, but there is no rule to say that such an article should be archived. Thus, your 'archiving' the page "for courtesy" does not seem to be properly justified, as there was no request I could find, and quite what this has to do with Kelly Martin remains a mystery to me. Therefore, in view of the brouhaha on your talk page, I thought that unarchiving it would give rise to the least drama, although you seem to want to prove me wrong on that. If you want to revert me, fine, but at least let's have a proper discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree (of course). I would also like to draw attention to the difference between "archiving" and "blanking".  HWV258  05:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Requests for Amendment

I see that PMAnderson has supplied three diffs concerning you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Statement by Septentrionalis (PMAnderson). Looking at them, I can see that you were taking articles that had mixed dmy and mdy formats and selecting one to make a consistent format. Could I ask you to reconsider your choice of dmy for those three articles, since (imvho) they have no strong ties to an English-speaking nation, and the earliest version of all three is written in mdy format? I know it's an utterly trivial point, but avoiding any semblance of controversy - just as we are starting to show that the date-wars are over - seems to be in everybody's best interest. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have made a statement at 'Amendments'. I should have been more careful knowing I have made some enemies over the last few months. I will certainly reconsider the date formats. However, it will have to wait, as I am on holiday from tonight for the next couple of weeks. Hasta la luego! Ohconfucius (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have reverted my changes. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

FLG

If you have about ten minutes of time, I would certainly urge you to give your two cents in the recent discussion, or at least look at it. Your expertise would be invaluable here. Colipon+(T) 17:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Academic views on Falun Gong

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Academic views on Falun Gong. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic views on Falun Gong (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to comment here.

Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth date and age

It doesn't work. You could use {BirthDeathAge|B|1962|4|10|1983|4|10|df=y} (1962-04-10)April 10, 1962 Rich Farmbrough 18:37 3 August 2009 (UTC).

If it wasn't broken. Rich Farmbrough 18:41 3 August 2009 (UTC).

So instead use {age|1962|4|10|1983|4|10} 21 Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

you're good at this

we should call on you whenever neutrality is required. the children-write-letter story on Rebiya Kadeer is now really NPOV. I will defend that wording. thanks!Seb az86556 (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have lapses myself, but this was easy that I already had it in the riots article, where there are eyeballs on it. So I copied it over. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Seb. I really think you are probably the best candidate to make those god-forsaken Falun Gong related articles balanced, because you seem quite skeptical of both the CCP and FLG, which I think is the most logical position to take on the matter. Sadly, "improving" the articles in that environment just doesn't seem like a good use of time. Colipon+(T) 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I used to be a lot more pro-FG before I started here. Then, with a few nasty experiences (as detailed in my essay) and despite a few positive experiences dealing with asdfg12345, another practitioner, added to what I read when working on the articles, changed my opinion This is the diff of the 'Persecution' article, and this is a diff of the 'Self-immolation' article, both of which were worked on by asdfg12345 and I worked together concertedly and collegiately until Rajeev appeared from one of his sabbaticals with his ball-and-chain. Rajeev radically changed over the course of a few short months after I abandoned them, leaving him to it (Basically, he browbeat me away). The baseline versions are the last versions I feel vaguely confident about neutrality (they still need a lot of work). I'm still reluctant to get back into FG - I was working alone for well over 8 months 'on my own', and it's not something I care to do in that fashion anytime soon. Please have a look at these, and if you see it worthwhile, it could be the starting point. If we can find consensus ;-), we could possibly revert to this version and start from there. I haven't looked at either of these since September 2008, so heaven knows what has happened to these since. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Problematic user

I have reported that user you spoke of on the Persecution of Falun Gong article here with our ever helpful fellow editor Rjanag. I've tried to gather some solid evidence as to why he should be banned. If you can help, it would be great! Colipon+(T) 22:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Email me. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism"

Hey, take a look at the discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Falun_Gong_work_group#Criticism_of_Falun_Gong. Ongoing debate about whether or not to rename "Academic Views on Falun Gong" to "Criticism of Falun Gong". As I expected, Olaf, asdfg, and Happy all oppose the move, while all level-headed editors are either supporting "Criticism of Falun Gong" or leaning towards supporting it. The discussion hasn't come this far for a while now. If you just put in your two cents I feel we will be this much closer to getting the article to where it belongs. Colipon+(Talk) 23:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OhConfucius, please help me here to file an arbitration enforcement request if you have time. I wish to put out this request in the next few hours. Any solid diff's would be great! Colipon+(Talk) 15:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital

Sorry, I was asleep. I fought myself through the entire edit-history, starting with the edit you asked me to comment on. you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"...

There's just one general question: Who started this article in the first place??? Compared to other articles about hospitals, this is quite peculiar. Usually, articles about hospitals should talk about number of patients, research, capacity, staff and all that. This one sound like "This hospital is a hospital, we give you that in one sentence in case you couldn't guess, and let's move on to what this is actually about, namely people being butchered"...

I see that as a problem. And that problem hasn't been solved, I'm afraid. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)