User talk:Ohconfucius/archive18

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

---

Falun Gong articles

Hi, I haven't logged in for a very long time and noticed you filed a case against Dilip rajeev back in 2009, and that you've stopped editing FLG-related articles as of 2010. It seems as if despite our vastly different political opinions we may both agree on the fact that: 1) Dilip rajeev has been far more disruptive "editing" FLG-related pages than Samuel Luo ever was; 2) There is a massive bias on FLG pages where they (users like Asdfg) will seek to drive out anybody who doesn't agree to a heavily skewed article where they spend most of their time criticising the Chinese government and complaining about their persecution than on their FLG belief system - assuming they weren't a movement founded only for being anti-CPC; 3) that Wikipedia has done nothing to remedy it and has changed any huge argument by banning one side's users without banning the other, thus failing to adhere to its fairness and NPOV (among other policies) policies.

If you've noticed, the discussion pages there have only grown longer because it has been totally flooded by contributions by FLG practitioners, mainly on one account Asdfg12345, where their points are heavily spaced out, obviously hoping that by blanketing the recent discussion pages with a FLG propaganda leaflet-style article, innocent new users may actually believe the "neutrality" of the article simply because nobody is contesting it. It's a great pity, really.

Sorry, that last post was by me and I forgot to sign off on my post with Jsw663 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, Dilip rajeev made my life a misery with his disruption; but he has been very reserved since the case. Olaf Stephanos seems to have disappeared; asdfg continues to wikilawyer, armed with his 'high quality sources', with a veneer of respectability and apparence of willing to engage in discussion. Editing those articles became a negotiation on their terms – a game I was no longer prepared to play. It now seems that asdfg and PCPP are both headed for a lengthy topic ban or site ban. Good riddance to bad rubbish. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, if Wikipedia is to uphold its fairness policies, then they can't stifle one side without doing the same for the other. It's only justice if Wikipedia also plans on banning two key contributors on the pro-FLG side... though the pro-FLG side will ultimately still win since there don't seem to be any more anti-FLG people on that board anymore, whereas the pro-FLG accounts seem to multiply - despite these accounts all having exactly the same view. So much for freedom of thought in the FLG! Jsw663 (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. I thought I was good rubbish. --Asdfg12345 17:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Apols, I forget that you're as badly scarred as I am from this whole affair. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You make me laugh. --Asdfg12345 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

me again

Please advice on POV and neutrality problem, if there is any:User:Arilang1234/Draft/Xin Yang Incident Arilang ^talk 03:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think such an article would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Two comments at this point:

1. I had my doubts about the notability, but there seem to be sufficient English language sources out there upon which to base your work. I am not suggesting that you drop the Chinese sources - there is likely to be more of these than English, and will supplement the English ones nicely.
2. Please be careful and decide what will be the primary focus of the article. At present, it seems to be focussed on the incident although the title is focussed on the book. It doesn't matter either way which focus you adopt, but you need to be consistent. Of course, you can build in a lot of background on the incident from book reviews. If you decide the focus to be the book, you should then try to write a section on the critical reception, based on reviews from (preferably) well-known critics/reviewers; you should also find among these critiques any points of controversy or points of contention raised by the reviewers which can and should be incorporated into the article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I am going to buy this book soon, so that I would be able to add more content to it. In your opinion, is it OK if I move the article from my sandbox now? I am worried because of my copyvio and ANI problems. Arilang ^talk 04:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have had a look at the supporting links, and see nothing which causes me concern in your text at this point. You now need to bolster up the article with links to reviews before moving it, or it runs a greater risk of being taken to AfD on grounds of [the book's] notability. Good luck! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist fields

Please note you can't remove underscores from {{infobox musical artist}} |Background= fields like you did on John Lennon because it changes the infobox display. Thanks Rjwilmsi 07:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Did nae realise it. Now fixed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Slim

Hi, you have recently used an automated tool to edit Carlos Slim and, in my opinion, it has some non-constructive changes. This is because it has converted "BBC News" into the "publisher" field of citation templates when in fact BBC News is the "work" and "BBC" should be the publisher, which was how things existed prior to your edit. The former is a subsidiary of the latter. Please advise. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• BBC News is a news organisation that, according to our style manuals, is not italicised. Only periodicals gets that treatment. I think WP emphasises the rendered output, not so much whether the field is absolutely descriptive – these are but a means to an end. The 'work' field within the citation template italicises, whilst the 'publisher' field does not, hence the reason for the change. However, I have seen some editors use the 'work' field, with an additional toggle when they need to populate both the work and publisher field – the same italics markup will make the work field display as unitalicised. In the case of the BBC, it's so well known that having |work=BBC News |publisher=BBC is unnecessary, IMHO. Hope that answers your question. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd made a completely different interpretation, which had nothing to do with italics, although I take that point. From Template:Cite_news I got:

• newspaper: Name of the publication that ran the item, e.g., The Miami Herald or The Scotsman. Can also be used for the name of a column or subpart of an issue. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically. (You may also use journal, magazine, periodical, or work, but do not use publisher for this.)

and

• publisher: The company or organization that publishes the news source (not to be used for the name of the news source itself; see the newspaper parameter). Can be (but need not be) omitted for major publications like The New York Times, but may add credibility for local papers that are part of a family of publications like The McClatchy Company.

This seems to suggest that it is not necessary to put BBC in the publisher field but something should be in the newspaper/work etc field - rather the reverse of what you say the MoS stipulates. (Haven't looked at the MoS re: this issue yet). Looks like an inconsistency in policy/guidelines.

Another curiosity - you capitalise the "C" in "cite" but the template examples do not. This one is not significant at all, but I'm curious!

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's an inconsistency as such, perhaps the NYT was slightly ambiguous. The template doc specifically mentions that |work= parameter italicises because it starts off with the assumption of a periodical source or a learned work such as book. The New York Times Company actually publishes the NYT, and that certainly does not need to be included in the 'publisher' field, and it would be incorrect to italicise as is clearly stated in the cited above. Capitalisation of the template is inconsequential, but is written into the code I borrowed. I would not go around doing nothing else but capitalise templates. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. You might want to set that tool of yours to trawl all the pages I've edited because I'm pretty sure I've done this thing incorrectly elsewhere. Whoops. Perhaps I should limit myself to capitalising :) - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's no big deal. I'll put that on my to-do list ;-) BTW, great work on Churchill! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you know about my involvement with Churchill, but thanks. I'm on W & J Galloway & Sons now, although have had a little hiatus for additional research. - Sitush (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

False positive

See this edit where it changed "the <full dmy date>" to simply "<full dmy date>" in the prose of the article. Normally this would be good, but the article had been worded strangely (surprisingly considering it's a FA) and the change actually made it make less sense. Not sure if this is an issue that you can be fixed (or if it is even worth fixing, as I can't see it occurring too often), but I thought you would like to know. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I had pondered the problem, and felt that while the script was for my own use, there was more to be gained from removing the leading 'the' (because there are so many of them), and intended for the script to remove the redundant 'thes'. It is different now that the pool of users has grown. You are correct that doing so sometimes causes problems when there are weird constructions such as 'the 23 October edition of 60 minutes', or the example you gave. I usually rewrite those while I am there. Not removing the leading 'the' often causes text to reads more strangely. Anhoo, I will try to find a suitable tweak to address your concern. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've now modified the script. It should only now remove instances of 'the' when they are inside mdy dates (e.g. November the 5th). So the incidence of false positives should fall sharply. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, very clever :) Once again, thanks for the quick fix. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WLKW edit

It was just the delinking of "1956 in radio" which we @ WP:WPRS use. As I was in a hurry between traffic reports this morning, it was the easier way around the problem.Stereorock (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, and noted. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the laziness yesterday & sorry for not seeing the blue box above until now. I'll stay over on my page for further correspondence.Stereorock (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

W & J Galloway & Sons vs commons boxes

Hi. I noticed your changes to this article. My concerns relate to the position of the two commons boxes, which you have moved lower down the page. These were located within the subsection of the article to which they related directly; they are much less relevant to the article as a whole. Is there any reason why they have to be located at the bottom of the page? I know the MOS recommends such links should be in External Links, but in this case that would also push them beyond the extensive reference list and I suspect most people would not look for them. Isn't this a case where 'rules may be broken'? (There is the likelihood that the subsection will develop into a separate article in due course, whereupon the problem will go away, but there's no telling how long it might be before this happens.)

In the mean time I have moved the two related images into a gallery template, to improve the layout. The commons boxes could fit on the RH side of the page, alongside the gallery (I've tried it), which would be neater still. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

{butting in) - I tend to agree with EdJogg regarding this. NB: also that the article is not at all settled down and is going to grow further, with a consequent growth in the refs. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Having mulled over the problem a little longer, I am starting to think that it may be better to create Galloway boiler as a new stub article (with Galloway tube as a subsection within), moving the descriptions from the article about the company. Both are currently redirects. Although there is little text at present, it will give a better home to the pictures and commons boxes, plus more accurate categorisation. No doubt there are mentions of the boilers elsewhere in the existing text that can be duplicated in the new article to pad it out a bit. The related talk page sections should also be copied across. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that sounds sensible, as these subtopics could be topics in their own right. As it seems to be your intention to create articles on these important topics, the commons links can sit in the 'See also' (or is that 'External links' ) section like they do in the majority of other articles. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews link for Manila hostage crisis

Just wondering: why remove the link to Wikinews' coverage? --Deryck C. 14:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I feel there's not much point wasting readers time on Wikinews coverage, as I'm usually disappointed in that which is usually second-hand rehash from journals. The WN link only covered one small aspect of it; the article was an early story which was superseded. I might have been tempted to leave the links where the story provides an angle or an aspect we don't cover. Our coverage in most cases is broader and deeper that WN, and our sources are also more numerous and diverse. This case is no exception.

  BTW, the story needs updating for the HK inquest... will you do the honours? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in Hong Kong at the moment (won't be back until summer), so I'll struggle to find enough news sources to support my research. From what I see on Yahoo HK news, most of the coverage is about things that we know already. Do go ahead and start editing the article as more information comes out, although having gone through it myself about half a month ago, I don't think any part (other than the lead) of the article desperately needs updating until the HK inquiry finishes. --Deryck C. 22:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting debate

Please have a look:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Revolution in China, a very interesting debate. Arilang ^talk 11:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Accessdates

[1] Hello. Would you please leave the accessdates in yyyy-mm-dd format, if that's how they are in the article? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Short answer is no, I'm afraid. The only long-standing requirement (per WP:MOSNUM) is for dates within the reference section to be all in the same format. It would seem that the date formats on that page were out of whack, whether the accessdate parameter alone or the overall refs, and my edit aligned them. If there are any dates in that or the body not so aligned, MOSNUM states they ought to be. If you want citation dates to be all yyyy-mm-dd, then be my guest, I will not change those back provided they are consistent, but leaving a mish-mash of dates just looks very sloppy indeed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not true. MOSNUM allows for accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD format regardless of the date format(s) used elsewhere within an article and its citations. This situation is supported by prior discussions and an RfC. It would be best if you did as requested and leave accessdates alone until a discussion/RfC on the issue has been had and resolved. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 08:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • YOu may be referring to a recent disputed change to MOSNUM. I already said: "I will not change those back [from yyyy-mm-dd to dmy/mdy] provided they are consistent, but leaving a mish-mash of dates just looks very sloppy indeed". I have nothing further to add at this point. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Using yyyy-mm-dd for accessdates and some other format for publication dates is not a mesh-mash, but a consciously chosen style that is used in many articles. It has been discussed on the MoS pages before, for instance Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_130#Reference_style. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Thank you for pointing out that discussion. I have not been following the discussions at WT:MOSNUM, to rid myself of the temptation of straying where I shouldn't. I have been going by the guideline, the stable version of which said (until only a few days ago) consistent date formats are required in the reference section. For as long as I have known MOSNUM, until a few days ago, there has been no mention of a separate derogation for accessdates. Indeed, many of the articles I come every day have a mix of dmy, mdy, d/m/y, m/d/y, yyyy-mm-dd, dd-mm-yyyy dates in any permutation, whether in citation dates or accessdates (if you do not believe me that this mish-mash exists, you are invited to do a random survey on say 100 articles). It is such instances I am seeking to unify. I generally do not change reference formats from yyyy-mm-dd to dmy or mdy unless for example cite dates or reference dates are inconsistent amongst themselves. Until I perfect the script to act on slash-dates without error, I will be working on dmy, mdy, yyyy-mm-dd formats. I have now reconfigured my script, and so it no longer changes any instance of accessdates from yyyy-mm-dd to dmy or mdy. I hope that addresses your concern. In order to prevent date format articles you are working on from being 'unnecessarily' changed, I would suggest that you ensure the formats are aligned. Regards, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A ref section with publication dates in mdy or sky and accessdates in yyyy-mm-dd is a consistent form. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wrote too much, or in too confusing a manner, for you to parse... I said:

• using publication dates in mdy or sky and accessdates in yyyy-mm-dd may be consistent, but they are not consistent when taking the reference section as a whole; parsing it gives me brain-interrupt.
• for any sample of articles (in my experience), the instances where publication dates in mdy or sky and accessdates in yyyy-mm-dd are consistent as a whole or within the accessdate field, are equalled in number if not exceeded by articles where there is no consistent usage, by your definition.
• I will no longer be changing dates within '|accessdate=' field with my script.

--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 09:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• BAD BLOCK. I do not believe there was any violation, technical or otherwise, and I have not been given any warning as any specific edits. After the talk page notices, I have not deliberately gone and changed accessdate formats in any article (to dmy or mdy) where they were entirely consistent. This block means I cannot respond to the ANI, even if I wish to, so be it. There is only place I may have edit warred, and that was at WP:MOSNUM, with Headbomb. Has Headbomb been blocked as well? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• I would also add that am using another script I enabled that avoids dates in the 'accessdate' field. It's a shame, because there is a lot of work to be done there, but hey, it's just tough shit. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you feel the block was unjustified or is no longer needed, you are free to use {{unblock}}. Although I did consider blocking Headbomb as well, you were the only one who's already been blocked—repeatedly—for this exact same topic. He's also not been part of an arbcom case that addressed edit warring/scripted edits on this exact same topic. What else are we expected to do? Give you a warning not to edit war when you've been repeatedly warned not to edit war? Please—tell us: what else can we reasonably do? --slakr^\ talk / 10:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"...what else can we reasonably do?—ask this question before applying the block. Things had settled down, so the block was too brutal in the circumstances.  GFHandel.   10:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• That was clearly an unreasonable conclusion to draw, and a pathetic rhetorical comment. I would speculate that Slackr was probably panicked by Headbomb, who came after me aggressively recharged from a night's sleep. A savvier admin would have looked at my contributions, seen that I was working and had not touched WP:MOSNUM in the few hours Headbomb was sleeping. He would have come to the conclusion that there was no risk of continued warring there, and that PP was unwarranted. But no. He would also have seen that I had enabled another script that avoids the contested part of my edits, but again no. I'll leave it up to Slakr to decide whether to unblock me. I'm not in the mood for bureaucracy. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and a savvier admin would have looked at MOSNUM, and seen that Headbomb had been edit-warring with Jc3 earlier on in the week, until the latter stopped the tango. He was more deserving of a block for his repeated warring over the "exact same thing". Mine was only 'related' and not "exactly the same", for I am not even allowed to comment on that which I was sanctioned for. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Me? Panicked by an edit war? :P Whatever you say, man. :P On a related note, though, I highly suggest that if you're gonna be doing a lot of scripted actions in a bot-like fashion (which also led to the block), I very strongly suggest that you file a new bot request for approval or re-open the failed one so as to avoid confusion in the future. --slakr^\ talk / 10:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Dear Ohconfucius, were you running an unapproved script or not? NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:BOLD, and all that, are about how humans should edit. They are based on the idea that if someone screws something up, it's easy to revert. Scripts and bots are much harder to revert, so IMO, NOTBUREAUCRACY and BOLD do not apply to scripts or bots. Those have to be approved in advance through BRFA every single time. There is bogus and irrelevant longterm philosophical divide about whether editors have "rights" and I don't much care about that question, which doesn't apply here. One thing I know is that bots don't have rights, and "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" refers to normal manual navigation and editing with a browser, not a bot or script. If you want to engage in editing anyone else objects to and that doesn't have prior consensus, do it manually, not with a script. If you did it with a script and got blocked, it is automatically a good block. As I see it, there is no such thing as a bad block of an unapproved script. They are all good. Your situation is not comparable to Headbomb's unless Headbomb was also editing with a script. Of course if he was, he should be blocked too. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a bad block: far too hasty. For an experienced and valuable contributor, admins who have people skills are required—not just some button. Tony (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

With no discredit to Slakr, I think this block was a little hastily implemented. Given that you appear to have changed the script's functionality and if you expressly commit to discussing these issues on the relevant talk page, rather than go back into an edit war I will unblock you. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As I am off in a bit I have unblocked you as the edit war is done with and you seem to be ready to discuss. But I'd still like to see an explicit commitment to discussing this issue properly and collegially and no more edit warring. You do know better! Please don't make me regret the gesture :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the unblock. I think my (in)action at MOSNUM (noted above) already demonstrates that I was done edit warring on HB's disputed example. I now expressly confirm my agreement that I will engage constructively. Taking two steps back, note that MOSNUM was not on my watchlist because of previous problems. Today, when I checked the text for text I had expected to see, I was surprised that a consensus version (or at least that part that had been stable for many, many, many months) had been changed, by Headbomb, and that he had apparently edit-warred with Jc3 on the inclusion only a few days previously. I initiated discussion on his talk page but was met with belligerent response. Yes, I had reverted once more than I had intended to, but what I did still fell short of breaching 3RR. I could not accept that HB only appeared to engage in proper discussion when MOSNUM was on 'his' version. I strongly object to Headbomb casting aspersions on me and my actions at ANI. But hey, this is a wiki, and it takes all sorts to make the world... I think Slakr's "Me? Panicked by an edit war? :P Whatever you say, man. :P" is somewhat condescending, set against the consensus that the admin was definitely hasty in his block... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U on Tenmei

As an editor who has interacted with User:Tenmei on the Senkaku Islands pages, I would like to inform you that I have filed a Request for comment on user conduct of Tenmei. You may read that RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, and are welcome to comment on it as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 once it has been certified. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Chater collection (Orange)

Replied on my talk page. (I know it says you prefer to keep discussions in one place, but I've been away for a while, so I'm just making clear I got your message). Spellcast (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Accessdate format

Hi,

I noticed in Nimrud Ivories (diff) you have arbitrarily changed accessdates on citations from standard ISO format to dmy using your script User:Ohconfucius/MOSNUM dates.js. Unless MOS has changed this is not recommended good practice as the ISO standard for accessdate is quite acceptable, could you explain why you have done this and why it should not be reverted? Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing it out. I have just reverted the change. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Given this comes so quickly after the last incident, when you gave clear assurances that you would not use your script to change accessdates, please confirm that this was simply a one-off mistake. _wjemather^bigissue 08:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I get the impression from the statement above that, if I have been committing systematic abuse with my script, I would long ago have been alerted to the complaint at a different venue. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
      • You seem to assume all your changes will be monitored, but I suspect many if not most will go unnoticed. Shall we take your response as an indication that you are unable to confirm that you have not touched accessdates as promised except for this one article, and it would be wise to review all your recent script assisted date formatting changes? _wjemather^bigissue 08:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
        • If many if not most will go unnoticed, why are you making such a big fuss? If you spot any, please let me know. ;-) In case you haven't noticed, I'm deliberately trying to wind you up. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see you are playing games here, I'm not interested in getting involved. It would be reassuring if you were to provide an unambiguous commitment that you will comply with MOS guidelines and not arbitrarily change accessdates from ISO standard in future using your script. Considering your experience, I am sure you are aware of how it may be interpreted as disruptive if such changes were to continue after having this discussion. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is my talk page. Of course I'm playing games. I said as much. I would just add that, further to my comments in earlier sections above – which still stand, I strongly implied that I have not been committing systematic abuse with my script. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making your position clear. Fæ (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • "Strongly implied that I have not been (doing it)" is just another way of saying "I did not say I would never do it". Yes, position seems clear. By failing to give a clear and unambiguous response to a simple question it only gives the impression of someone who is trying to get away with something. The contributions will need to be checked.

      By the way, your talk page or not, it remains a violation of policy to deliberately attempt to wind someone up. Please don't. _wjemather^bigissue 12:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Having checked less than ten articles, I found this, this and this, all made after you gave assurances last week ("I will no longer be changing dates within '|accessdate=' field with my script"). This surely looks systematic to me. _wjemather^bigissue 12:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Ohconfucius, could you explain these changes made today, after your above statement, where accessdates have been reformatted using your script for an article where there is no consensus to change ISO dates to dmy format? I'm afraid this now looks like deliberate disruptive editing by misusing a script against the guidelines of MOS to me, unless I am missing something about why you are making these changes. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I can assure you that edit you identified was done manually, and the result of more than 10 minutes' work. There were a large number of accessdates – 41 instances, to be exact – in the version preceding my edit, many of which were not in yyyy-mm-dd format. It is still desirable, per MOSNUM, to align date formats. I trust that answers your question. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I can appreciate that the edit in question was more than just the script, however the edit comment states "align date formats by script" and part of your edit was to convert several accessdates from ISO to dmy format. There is no consensus on American Idol (season 10) to convert the citations and the changes must be considered to be against the guidelines of MOS as the earliest use of access date on citations for this article use ISO standard (see this version). I'm sorry to say that your justification that these changes might be to "align date formats" does not hold water. You have been asked several times to desist from making these changes which are against the existing guidelines and consensus. I am happy to be polite and patient, however there has to be a point beyond which such actions demonstrate a convincing pattern of disruption for other editors, please be clear that that point has now been reached. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mills and Paul

Hi, Many thanks for transforming Sid Ferris. Does the same copyright argument apply to the cigarette card Players cigarette card of Mills and Paul on Tandem - "Cycling" - John Player & Sons - Track Tandem Position - #45 in Series of 50 - (1939). It would transform both articles of the tandem pair - Ernest Mills and Bill Paul (cyclist)? Regards Chienlit (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I believe that all the cards of the series are now free of UK copyright. The applicable rule is that "A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1941" in Sid's case, and "An artistic work other than a photograph (e.g. a painting), which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1941" in the case of your tandem card (see {{PD-UK-unknown}} template). I would do the uploading if I knew the cyclists or the appropriate cards, but I do not. I will leave that pleasure to you. You may copy the text visible in edit mode when you are uploading at Commons, changing only part of the description. Regards, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• I would also mention that the images for that user seem to be somehow protected. This can be circumvented by downloading the entire web page to your computer, and then selectively uploading the image file from the downloaded folder. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. :) Chienlit (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

6521 project

I was going to take you to task for removing my addition of the 6521 project to 10th anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Then I realized I was off by a decade, and am feeling a little red-faced. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 05:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, to err is human. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and thanks for the text. I've included a few lines to the effect at the right place. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot date conversion

Hello, Ohconfucius. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

GOCE / Mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2011 backlog elimination drive Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your mid-drive newsletter. Participation GOCE March 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs So far, 79 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 64 have participated. Interest is high due to a link to our event from the Watchlist page, and many new and first-time copy editors have joined us for the drive. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. We have assisted in the promotion of seven articles to Good article status so far this month. Progress report We have already achieved our target of reducing the overall backlog by 10%; however, we have more work to do with the 2009 backlog. We have almost eliminated May 2009 and we only have some 700 articles left from 2009. It is excellent progress, so let's concentrate our fire power on the remaining months from 2009. Thank you for participating in the March 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success! Utahraptor resigns The UtahraptorTalk to me has decided to step down from his position as project coordinator due to real-life issues. Your drive coordinators – S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk) and Tea with toast (Talk)

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

European Rotaract Information Centre

Hi,

I am new to WP and did one or two edits on the European Rotaract Info Centre as it was flagged for copy-editing. I see you deleted the article - which I completely agree with.

I was very impressed to see all your awards - keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowcrocus (talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message. I've noticed that you are responding to {{copyedit}} tags, and would point out to you that there is a GOCE copyediting drive in progress that you might like to sign up for. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll check out GOCE - and this time I'll remember to sign this :) ! Yellowcrocus (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot/AWB mistake

Here you replaced several links with "$1". Please fix the problem, thanks. (Let me know if you need help to trace back any affected article.) -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for drawing my attention to it. I have tried to recreate the error in my sandbox with my script, but cannot. Indeed, I cannot recall ever having put anything in my script that removes links to ethnicities. Furthermore, it looks like I may have run a custom Regex to obtain the result. I do not expect to find the same error repeated for that reason. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

a bug for you ;)

• Diff of 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami
• Diff of 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

The script broke a url that had an ISO date in it. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching it, Jack. That was recent addition to the code. It has now been fixed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  I saw; no problemo. Damned, Gold Hat^{off-the-reservation
  sockpuppet}06:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikinews without any indication of the sort in your edit summaries

Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents Why did you delete all the Wikinews links? [2]

65.95.15.189 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

International_reaction_to_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents And this edit? [3] 65.95.15.189 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I nuclear accidents And this edit: [4] 65.95.15.189 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• None of those second-hand 'news reports' adds anything that isn't already covered by the given article or sister articles. In general terms, the sources cited in our articles are more extensive and up to date than those in WN, and this case is no exception. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I nuclear accidents

You reverted my edit to Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Please be more careful when encountering edit conflicts. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Apologies. No edit conflict was indicated, or I would have proceeded with more caution. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to let you know, I have referenced this incident at the village pump after I encountered several additional failures of the software to detect edit conflicts. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cite newspaper The Times

Re your recent removal of the wikilink from this template, would you object to one link per article using this template? I've made a suggestion at Template talk:Cite newspaper The Times for an additional parameter which would default to no link being provided, but allow a link to be made if desired. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, I would not object to that idea. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ohconfucius. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

British spelling script

Be careful with this script. I don't think you are supposed to change the spelling of direct quotations. I removed some quotes in Mother India because you changed the spelling. Maybe the script should avoid text in quotes. BollyJeff || talk 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Noted, thanks for the fix. It usually avoids quotes, but simple or double quote marks are difficult if not impossible to work with. When I come across them, I usually enclose these in {{q}} template, but I missed those quotes in this article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Gilly Roach

Hey, You have made edits to this page recently. However you have made the references inbcnsistant. Could you link all work and publisher fields again? Also remove publication locations from the references because they are not specific and only some now have them, making the references inconsistant.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 18:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure I know exactly which inconsistencies you mean. If the refs are now "inconsistent", it is probably because they were inconsistent to start with. I counted five instances of Daily Mails (all linked) in the refs, and they have now all been unlinked through my actions. All five now are followed by 'location=UK', so where is the inconsistency? The location is only really necessary as a disambiguation field, so there is absolutely no need to populate it for many other journals, such as the 'New York Times' or 'San Francisco Chronicle'; the British Daily Mail is not the only one. Also, the consensus is not to link a term or word repeatedly. Daily Mail, only the second-best-selling British tabloid, is already linked to in the body of the text, and linking five times in the refs section is wholly unnecessary. I would also ask you to familiarise yourself with the Manual of Style, as the article concerned contained (and still does) contain breaches thereof. I have attempted to fix some of these – such as italicisation only of periodicals or works) pursuant to its listing as WP:GAN. The remaining breaches, although minor, may well not pass muster with some reviewers. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They are either all linked or non - in order to be consitent. The same with publisher locations. If I took that too FAC they would oppose it quick because of the ref formatting. So could you sort that out for me please? I guess you can find out the locations fields for all the other publishers. So the two times I have taken an article to FAC they said link all work and publishers, include all publisher locations or non. It's listed as a GA anyway.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• All or nothing would be a piece of piss to execute. I will check with those interested in such matters at FAC and fix accordingly. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I happen to have the article watchlisted and noticed you just de-italicised all references to Digital Spy. According to the guideline on italics, the italicisation was correct as it's a news site with original content. Also, I don't believe the recent discussion at WP:OVERLINK came to a consensus either way as to whether overlinking applies to references. Frickative 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed, I was about to add that there are many people who argue for at least one link for each source, whilst I prefer none except for the most exotic source. But there is absolutely no need whatsoever to link repeatedly to BBC or The New York Times in that dense piece of real estate. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have raised a query at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#News websites with original content. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You have removed the publishers from digitalspy, why? First time anyone has EVER done that in my viewing of it's use.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Two reasons: Principally due to incorrect italicisation, but also because it's a chain link. Anything in the '|work=' field is automatically italicised, whereas website names are not italicised, so I 'moved' it to the '|publisher=' field, where the text is not formatted. If anyone interested in knowing who runs Digital Spy, they click on the link, and voilà! I suppose if you really want, you could include Hachette in parentheses within the same field as Digital Spy on its first occurrence; the template only supports one appearance of each field. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You've notified the reviewer and left a message on the talk page. What are your intentions in doing that. Very disheartening.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't be upset or disheartened. I did so because I thought that it was a common courtesy. It's not meant to be an attack in any way. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just because I asked you about it - With you then suggesting the review needed more work in more than one place name space, suggesting I read the MOS, removing more content from references. So now I do feel quite put out. Another editor who invests so much time as I do, making such a fast pace of changing events without any real conversing. Therefore I percieved it to be underhand and that is certainly not to say it is.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I can obviously see the amount of work you have put in, and I don't mean to disparage it. I was also trying to make it better according to my understanding of the guidelines. Can we start again? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and feel free to revert any or all of my changes. If you prefer a wholescale revert revert, and if there are certain changes you approve of, please let me know as I may be able to reapply them again swiftly. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is fine. I forgot to assume good faith, which is wrong of me. I suppose we all have different understandings and so forth. I've just looked at so many FAC reviews nitpicking at refs, I started formatting them how they suggested. Weird I know. The one thing I do out of sense of habit which is bad, is concerning accessdates.. I'd always put "2011-03-22" instead of "22 March 2011" Just latley I've got used to clicking the handy "insert todays date" tool in the cite gadget..RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 03:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm glad we got it sorted out. Nice to meet you. Again, I would again apologise for treading deeper into the article since receiving your first cocerns, which I do not doubt made matters worse. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. :) Are you any good at grammer and correct prose?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 00:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think I can make a pretty good effort although I'm not 'the best'. Any article in particular you would like me to look at? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I have an article in mind yes. It is my own writing that needs to be more consise, I guess. If you would maybe help me along the way. Carmella Cammeniti recently failed GA and I was advised to get extra help with my writing. I know it is a big ask. .. =DRAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 03:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've started working on it. I say it needs quite a bit of work to refocus it and to improve the prose. Please note that I usually edit the lead section last of all, once I get a good enough feel of the subject and all the elements in the body are in place.

  Because of the history of the character, I think that each section would benefit from a clearer chronological progression. However, I am unfamiliar with the series, so may get some of the small details muddled, so please excuse me if I leave you to fix those up. It's all I have time to spend on it for the next few days. I will try to come back to it later. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked over the edits and they are good obviously and I need to take note. :p Take as much time as you like with it though. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 16:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am so happy with the changes on Carmella. I'll be able to renominate it soon won't I? :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 15:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm glad you approve of the changes. You'll be able to nominate it for GAC in good time. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate application of WP:Overlinking via AWB edits

In this edit (and many others like it), you replaced most instances of flag templates with {{Flag icon|Country}} Country, citing WP:Overlinking in your edit summary. These are bad edits for a couple of reasons:

1. Per WP:REPEATLINK, tables and lists are exceptions to this rule. Each table or list row must stand on its own. Especially when tables are sortable, the "first" instance of a country name might not be near the top of the table when the table is sorted by other columns.
2. Per WP:Manual of Style (accessibility), and specifically the extra detail found on WP:Alternative text for images, information icons should not have alternative text, so that they are ignored by screen readers. {{Flagicon}}, which renders only a standalone icon with no associated link, outputs alternative text so that the icon renders something useful for screen readers. For example, {{flagicon|UK}} [[David Cameron]] will be read as "United Kingdom David Cameron", which is probably what the article editor intended. But when the icon is adjacent to the country name, {{flag}} should be used, since it does not output any alternative text for the icon. For example, a screen reader will render {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} United Kingdom as "United Kingdom United Kingdom" but will render {{flag|United Kingdom}} as simply "United Kingdom". The icon is present for the visual browser, but ignored by the screen reader.

Please stop substituting flag templates like this. They are almost always used in lists or tables, so it will be rare to find an instance where WP:REPEATLINK does not apply. If a flag template is used in prose text, you can probably remove it altogether per WP:Manual of Style (icons). Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• The issue isn't so much WP:REPEATLINK, but that the countries should be linked to at all in those cases, table or no. Yes, we all know that these countries exist, but that does not justify linking the articles where they do not help improve the readers' understanding of the subject. However, the links you choose to defend per the diff you selected impart no better understanding of the article, and therefore must be treated as falling with the realm of 'do not link to common terms'. Whilst I appreciate the {{flag}} templates have a certain usage that should not necessarily be replaced by {{flag icon}} + country, it is a close substitute for how the {{flag}} template renders, minus the link. If you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I must say, I find the flags distracting ornaments. Tony (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • In that case, perhaps I should simply replace {{flag|GBR}} with 'United Kingdom'... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
      • That's a perfectly acceptable solution. But can you also please agree to stop inserting {{Flag icon|Country}} Country into articles, for the accessibility reasons I cited? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Sure. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I've also just created {{flagu}} if you'd like to use that in some instances. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

New article

Hi, please have a look at User:Arilang1234/Draft/China: The Roots of Madness (1967) Documentary Film, need your advice on RS, POV, and notability. Please feel free to edit it. Arilang ^talk 05:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have add a bit of content to the draft, mainly long quotations, do you think it is ready to be moved out of draft now? Arilang ^talk 12:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Brittani Kline

Except in rare, extreme cases, one should not place a speedy tag on an article that is currently a subject of community debate at CAT:PROD, WP:XfD, or WP:AfD. So I removed your speedy tag. Please discuss this on the AfD page. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, I voted in the AfD. I have in the past so tagged similar articles, during AfD. Many were deleted by admins who then closed the discussions, cutting the bureaucracy and reducing the backlog. Perhaps there has been a change in the acceptability of doing things this way? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Date format conversion - m-d-y to d-m-y

Through sheer crazy luck, I stumbled across your date conversion scripts only minutes after asking the nice folks at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history" to review the results of some trial conversions I did with AWB Find & Replace. I was happy with the results, but now I see your awesome and hairy scripts. They do much more than my AWB kludge, but I didn't need any more. Should I stop offering to use AWB for this, or is there a scenario where its use is not too laughable? Chris the speller ^yack 01:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• You may have been blinded by my edits because I quite often run two or three style scripts in a single edit. I'm sorry you did all that work to build the rules, only to find that someone else already had some similar scripts. In fact, my script is built on the efforts of User:Lightmouse, who pioneered semi-automation for this work. I came across many instances where it was not working optimally while he was banned. This included unlinking creatively-piped dates prior to converting these, and correct converting date ranges rather than simple dates, so I decided to upgrade the script, often with his help. I also created some time ago a module for use in AWB, again based on the one created by Lightmouse, but I seem to recall it isn't so sophisticated as the script, but you are welcome to try it out. Your AWB rules seem to work well enough, and I am happy for you to continue using it and refining it for your own needs. I am a Mac user, and cannot use AWB until I get Windoze installed. I will happily assist at WP:MILHIST when I can, using my scripts to supplement your work there. You know of course that AWB has the advantage of mining the database dumps and building lists, which speed up work considerably. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and opinion. The AWB rules didn't take very long, maybe a couple of hours, and were kind of fun to do. I had previously developed roughly the same thing with an external editor, but getting the page into and out of the external editor was tedious and dicey. When you get to AWB, don't expect a totally miraculous experience; fetching and fixing articles is amazingly fast, but getting the server to jam the finished page back in sometimes takes quite a while, sometimes hanging up until AWB restarts after 2 minutes. I'll see you around WP. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 03:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I also tried using external applications, but these are often a nuisance; doing it that way multiplies the keystrokes. I am so pleased that scripts can be run. There is also provision for running custom regexes in the edit window which I often use for simple string search-and-replaces. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Incubation project

I see from the discussion there that you are interested in the Incubation project. You might be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#Use_of_incubation_outside_stated_guidelines. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Harry and the Potters

Thanks for the heads-up. I never knew that!--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• you are most welcome. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Expensive!

Regarding [5], one dollar-sign is probably enough? DMacks (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• <laughs>Expensive indeed!<laughs/> Thanks for pointing it out. It was caused by a poorly constructed pipe: "US$6 million". I wonder if there are any more like that out there... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Beatles" versus "the Beatles"

There is currently a vote taking place and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2011 backlog elimination drive report Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating in the March 2011 drive! This newsletter summarizes the March drive and other recent events. Participation GOCE March 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs There were 99 signups for the drive; of these, 70 participated. Interest was high mainly due to a link to our event from the Watchlist page. We had a record-breaking 84 articles listed on the Requests page in March; 11 of these have been promoted to Good article status so far. Several of our recent efforts have received Featured Article status as well, and the GOCE is becoming a solid resource for the Wikipedia community. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog. Progress report Remarkable progress was made in reducing the backlog this month, as we now have fewer than 500 articles remaining from 2009. We are well under the 4,000-article mark for the total number remaining in the queue. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 53% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their April drive has started. New coodinators On March 21, SMasters appointed Chaosdruid (talk) and Torchiest (talk) as Guild coordinators to serve in place of The Utahraptor, who recently stepped down. Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your drive coordinators – S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk) and Tea with toast (Talk)

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 Copy Edit Drive Award

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For copy editing during the March 2011 GOCE Backlog Elmination Drive totaling over 30,000 words, I present Ohconficius with this barnstar. Congratulations, and thanks for your help! —Torchiest talkedits 04:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to leave a big thank you, for your long and hard fight against FLG-"supporters". I am amazed on how mannered you are, given how you had to deal with so much false information/people who disrespect you/the wikipedia. I would have given up way earlier, so hats off to you sir! 85.237.211.249 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Wasn't very easy, and highly stressful at times... which is why I gave up. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Evgeny Kovtun

Hello, Thank you for dealing with a few problems like the Mykonos windmills. Seeing to Kovtun's article may be needed. He looks like a writer who would only qualify on limited grounds. He was in the German WP but got deleted from there. The longest of the articles is the Georgian one.Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've nominated it for deletion. We'll see how that goes. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you: it certainly has some issues worth looking at.Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • its gone. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The International School of Moscow

Hi. I've declined your speedy request as the article doesn't look overtly spammy. Created by SPAs, maybe, but so are very many articles. Russian IPs are to be expected as the school is in Moscow. As to news, a lot of schools don't get into the news, and this one's only been going since 2007. Not a lot of time for scandals to happen.... Anyway, you are welcome to prod it or take it straight to AfD as it is a preparatory school and not a 'high school' and thereby sacrosanct by WP's standards. Peridon (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again

Please have a look at User:Arilang1234/Draft/The Ditch and suggest ways to improve it. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 00:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable contributions at The Ditch, maybe it is worth a try at Template talk:Did you know, do you think? Arilang ^talk 08:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm only at 522 words. I've never understood the requirement for 1500 readable characters. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Accessdates again

[6] You seem to be changing yyyy-mm-dd accessdates again. Did something change since the discussions in early March? Gimmetoo (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is another example at Graham Greene. I cannot work out what part of the script User:Ohconfucius/MOSNUM dates.js is doing this though. -84user (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

MOSNUM says the date format should be consistent within each article. That is what those edits are doing. -- Alarics (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

CCI

[7] Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Дунгане

It hasn't been touched in six months, they seem to be working on all the new ones and then dump them into the backlog, which makes them constantly pile up..ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on MOSNUM talk

Hello Ohconfucius,

Having seen some of your work I thought highly of you. Therefore I was disappointed with the tone of this comment Following the sources is not an attack on Imperial/customary units. It could be used to divert concern over which unit to put first into a far more productive search for the most reliable sources of information. Michael Glass (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I thank you for your kind message, and would offer my apologies for the tone of my post (FYI, I only ever eff or blind when I'm in a flippant mood). What set me off was when you said 'historical measure', bring the inference that they were supplanted. You may or may not have noticed that there is a certain party who fights MOS almost non-stop because he thinks it is irrelevant and has no authority. This person is engaged in just such a battle of cherry-picking sources to back up his desire to destroy MOSDASH. That 'source-based' battle is ongoing as we speak.

  Oh, how I would dearly love for a single style to apply throughout WIkipedia. But having lived the scars of the date delinking case, I have come to realise that that single style isn't going to happen. There are the occasional skirmishes in different areas exactly because of conflicting standards and style guides in use. We live in a cobbled-together world where toes are trod upon as little as possible. WP:RETAIN, WP:TIES have succeeded in keeping the peace in the fractious world in which we edit. Although I have no strong personal preference for any unit of measure kg/cm vs lb/in, as I said, I strongly identify these as fairly prominent national symbols in the US, UK and Australia. A 'source-based' throws an additional layer of complication into the style arena which opens the door to a disintegration of the MOS. Maybe I'm a bit apocalyptic, but our 'style-anarchist' friend may have got me a little paranoid.--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, which I am happy to accept. It may seem a minor point, but I didn't use the phrase "historical measure." The transcript shows that I used the words, "traditional measurements" and "the older measures." These phrases are accurate from the point of view of older Australians, who grew up with the Imperial measures and whose countries changed to the metric system half a lifetime ago but this is not the way that you see things in the UK.

I understand that you see measures in terms of national ties: customary measures for the US, Imperial measures for the UK and metric measures for Australia and most of the rest of the world. In the case of the United States, I believe that has a measure of truth. However, in the UK the situation is far more complex, far more political and also more fluid, with metrication both spreading and being furiously rejected. This is why different UK articles are so inconsistent in their choice of units. Perhaps something can be done about the inconsistency. However, talking about it seems to be counter-productive. Michael Glass (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yea, trying to have a uniform date format across Wikipedia is a non-starter; an even trying to have a single format in articles is occasionally viciously fought – there are editors who are firmly wedded to their yyyy-mm-dd date formats for retrieval dates. I think that if we had to build a MOS today, I doubt it could be done. Such is the wonderful wiki-world we live in...--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

True. I look on in amazement at the puzzlement caused by differences in spelling. However, every now and again something new comes up. I thought it could be live and let live between BC and BCE. However, then someone came up with a new wrinkle, the Holocene calendar.

However, my very worst mistake was drawing attention to the fact that Falkland Island articles were inconsistent in their use of units. Some were a mixture of units and others were metric. I don't think anyone would have noticed if I had not spoken up. However, my comment alerted the ardent Imperialists and they reformed them to be all Imperial. Then, when this proved to be unsustainable, they switched to a mixture of units that was supposed to reflect modern British practice, and its rigidities and inconsistencies were inflicted even on stubs of a couple of hundred words.

Now there are three standards: one for US articles, another for UK articles and a third policy just for Falkland Island articles! Anarchy would actually have been better than what resulted. Therefore, I will try not to argue for consistency or rules ever again - well, at least until the next time! Michael Glass (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Pfff! That's what WP:BOLD is for. The other trick is probably to find out what certain editors have on their watchlists and avoid working on them.

  I see you've lopped a couple of feet off this guy's height! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah! 2.89 metres (almost 9 ft 7 in) was the work of a sneaky vandal. I just returned his height to the one given by Premier League. Michael Glass (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Neighbours

Ohconfucius, how come to have delinked from references. There was no consensus to do that as I recall. I thought you were just doing to do general date formatting and so on on Soap opera articles?Rain the 1 ^BAM 14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm really puzzled at your using 'inconsistant' to describe what I am doing. The script is wholly consistent, and can repeat exactly the same action when it is run. FYI, I am no longer touching the formatting on DIgital Spy, and am leaving those links intact. But I would say such linking would fall into the category of overlinking – those who are interested can find out who the publishers are by clicking on the journal link. There is certainly no reason to link common-garden terms, or link any name repeatedly, reference section or otherwise. I'm not picking a fight, but was only doing something which appears to be generally appreciated. It seems like you feel strongly that I am doing something wrong within your realm, so here's where I stop. I promise to work on some other area where we don't get into a tug of war. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know. :) Hmm, cannot we not take them back and just do formating on overlink in the general prose, set the dates right etc. And perhaps leave the references untouched until there is a consensus for it. At the wikiproject for soaps we kind of just adopted the set stance for references. Eeek though, I feel bad for asking. I really don't want to be a pain, you just went through all of those after all. Rain the 1 ^BAM 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) I forgot to mention that I have been having a discussion about 'consistency' at FAC I have been having with one of the reviewers on her talk page. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I saw it before, I'm not stalking you, I promise =D (I had Nikki's talk watch listed after a recent FAC lol). Anyhow how has the day been? I'm losing my motivation to make big edits, ahh. :/Rain the 1 ^BAM 14:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yea, that's why I frequently change the type of work I do, to ward off the monotony... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you're currently all over my watchlist, as I watch most of the Neighbours articles, I thought I'd say hi. :) - JuneGloom Talk 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

G'day, mate! I'm all over Rain's watchlist too. ;-) Give me a holler if there's anything else I can help out with. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Australian English tagging

Re: your recent British English tagging of INXS, since that's an Australian subject, I took the liberty of setting up some Australian English templates to add to the British and Canadian collection, since there are differences in Australian English vs British English. You may wish to expand any language maintenance scripts accordingly. Dl2000 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, that was enlightening. My friend Tony1 happily uses the British spelling module for Australian subjects and I assumed that the vocabulary I built into the script caters for the common elements of British and Australian English without disturbing the divergences. Perhaps there are still improvements to be made. It would indeed be helpful for me if you could give me feedback on Australian English with respect to the script documentation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing derp

Looks like we're in for a party of canvassed partisan !voting on the discussion pages by the looks of things, not to mention edit warring... I've passed my third, so I can't continue any longer for today; it seems Waikiki lwt's canvassing means that he's trying to get an "upper hand" in his own edit war by getting more people on "his side" involved; even though he hasn't specifically suggesting reversions, it's obvious to anyone that if you're bringing an article to the attention to someone, you intend that they do something about it. Would this be considered foul play on Waikiki lwt's behalf? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

News citations (location, etc.)

Hello, I just left a spiel at User talk:Nikkimaria#Query about 'consistency' which is as much a reply to you as it is to her, so I thought I'd better draw your attention to it and would be interested in any further comments you may have. Best, -- Alarics (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Good candidate for another new article:Civilization: Is the West History - Pt1. (Competition)

• User:Arilang1234/Draft/Civilization: The West and the Rest

Civilization: Is the West History - Pt1. (Competition) Arilang ^talk 06:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Another video

Citizens Against Government Waste, with 1,831,909 hits, maybe another wiki article?

File:US Campaign Attack Ads Take Aim at China.ogv

Meantime, a perceived villian has emerged in many political races -- China. VOA's Laurel Bowman explores why. Date

Donate to help end wasteful deficit spending at www.cagw.org. This new ad is part of an ongoing communications program in CAGW's decades-long fight against wasteful government spending, increased taxes, out-of-control deficit spending, and a crippling national debt that threatens the future and survival of our country. Arilang ^talk 05:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• not sure it's worth anything. Have there been any comments/reviews/controversies involving this ad? If so, might be worth a paragraph at Citizens Against Government Waste. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhangjiandong

You are invited to participate in discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhangjiandong. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've pretty much made it clear as diamonds that there are a few problematic citations that need to be removed, not only on the AfD page but also on the article talk page and user talk page of Wakiki. I don't see how any further discussion is needed regarding removal, given that both parties have been given the opportunity to speak out on the talk page, and yet no one has bothered to respond. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Manila hostage crisis#Sleetman's edit

Since you are one of the major editors on this page, I invite to join this discussion. Thanks—Chris!_c/t 21:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Need some clarification on copyright

Hi, I just noticed that you were previously involved in the copyright violation case[8] regarding the particular editor Arilang1234. I have recently left a notice on the Admins noticeboard regarding some recent issues concerning the editor, [9] such as using images with watermarks, and uploading videos from Youtube directly. Can you provide some clarification on the acceptable guidelines?60.242.159.224 (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have been involved helping to clean up the copyvios, but I do not profess any specialised knowledge on image copyright matters. I have seen the ANI thread linked to above, and would just say although it seems inappropriate to use images with watermarks, low-resolution images of book cover, like album cover images, are used across wikipedia, particularly if the article of the subject contains critical commentary. I am not aware that Fair Use provisions must be granted by the publisher (or other copyright holder); we merely post images and must offer justification as to fair use thereof, and anyone including the copyright owner still has the right to challenge us and request their removal. Wholescale removal of such images in disregard to fair use provisions would, I believe, cause major upheaval. Of course watermarked material must be replaced by non-watermarked items. As to videos sourced from the CIA, I believe that works by US Federal Government agencies – such as the FBI, CIA, US Army and Navy – are all public domain. My view is that the use of book cover images (and their use here) are not in violation of WP:FAIRUSE. No doubt an expert in these matters will speak up at the thread. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD

BLPPROD can't be used on articles older than March 2010. Fences&Windows 00:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Northern line

I approve of most of what you and your script do, particularly on standardising date formats and undoing overlinking. (I had made a start on cleaning up European integration and you have just saved me the trouble of finishing the job.) However, in Northern line I see that where "cite news" is used for BBC News references, you have changed "work" to "publisher". Are you sure this is correct? It has the effect that BBC News no longer appears in italics in the ref, which I thought news sources were supposed to do. I also thought that the "publisher" parameter in "cite news" was meant for use only in the rare case where a small obscure local newspaper belongs to a larger group (in which case, it is used *as well as*, not *instead of*, the name of the publication itself) -- at least that is what the "cite news" documentation appeared to be saying when I last looked. Hope you have time to reply, -- Alarics (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not make any formal distinction between populating the |work= field or |publisher= fields, but use these to manage italicisation. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting), journals, traditional print media, TV programs, other artistic works are italicised, so I tend to put these into the 'work' field. However, as it seems we are talking about the news organisation or the website 'BBC News' and not, for example BBC News at Ten, or Panorama. My interpretation is that its name should not be italicised (although I confusingly note that Huffington Post should be italicised). I have asked the folks at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting), but so far I have not had a definitive answer. If however, you get any confirmation or contrary indications, I'd be grateful if you would let me know, and I'll adjust the script accordingly. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, but my interpretation would be that the publisher (if that were separately required, which it isn't of course) is just "BBC", whereas the BBC News website is a specific product (or "work") of the BBC, analagous to a newspaper, including an online newspaper such as Huffington Post. (This was perhaps clearer when they called it "BBC News Online" but they seem to have quietly dropped the "online" bit.) So I would say that if the item is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ then BBC should not be italicised, but if it is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ then BBC News should be. -- Alarics (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • To my mind, there is still a grey area as to what gets capitalised, as not all websites need that treatment. Supposedly, it's those which have "original content". It's been almost a month now, but my post at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Internet Sites and WP:ITALICS specifically about BBC News has still not been answered, but looking at those articles, neither of them are italicised. As an aside, even Digital Spy doesn't italicise the subject, so I would say non-italicisation is the way to go with those.--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Very disappointing reply. I feel that not to italicise BBC News looks inconsistent with other news references. I think it is analogous to such media as Huffington Post and it would seem odd if we did not italicise that just because it exists only on the web and not in print. We do after all italicise Daily Mail and so on, even though some of their content may not be in the printed version. -- Alarics (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, here's not the venue to decide whether it should be italicised, I'm afraid. I wish there was standard practice as to this; I'm not going to start italicising website names just yet – the styling of these new media outlets' names is giving me an headache. The problem you pose of the distinction to be made for http://www.bbc.co.uk/ vs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ adds yet another layer of complexity I cannot cope with. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have found many other articles in which BBC News is italicised, so I will just continue to do the same, if you don't mind. -- Alarics (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I will tweak my script so that it no longer messes with italicisation of BBC News. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Many thanks! -- Alarics (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Please have a look: User:Arilang1234/Draft/Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry, another new article? Arilang ^talk 04:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just because a film is about a notable person doesn't automatically make the film notable; there are few indications that it is. The text reads like promotional material, and the second segment is a straight copyvio of the source cited. More independent sources are required. I will have a hunt around. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again

Please have a look:User:Arilang1234/Draft/Red Songs campaign, in fact, some of the songs are quite "likable", and very popular in their times. Arilang ^talk 02:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's notable enough for its own article, or that a substantial article in that namespace can be built to WP requirements. I've copyedited it and placed it in a better place, until such time there is enough material to build an article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Message at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots

there is some concern about dead refs and such, questioning the FA-status of the article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal places

Proposed merge of Category:Reportedly haunted locations into Category:Paranormal places. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_24#Category:Reportedly_haunted_locations. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 16:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

MOSNUM script

The script removes boldface from tables, and not just heading rows. Whether you decide that's something you want to change or not, I was wondering whether you would make a stripped down version that only does dates. I'd do it myself, but I have no idea how. -Rrius (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A stripped down version has already been created at User:Dl2000/DateFix.js (but it focuses more on national formatting, see the documentation). Hope this helps, Jenks24 (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the documentation, and I still have no idea what it means by national formatting. What I want is something that will take YYYY-MM-DD and make a normal date out of it, that will flip between mdy and dmy at will, and that will remove ordinals from dates. Of those, YYYY-MM-DD is the most important because there aren't a lot of scripts that do it. -Rrius (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Frequenters of WP:MOSNUM often refer to dd mmm yyyy date format as "international date format" and mmm dd, yyyy as "American date format" for the sake of convenience, because mmm dd, yyyy seems more widely used in the US. For our purposes, "international format" is adopted as the British, Australian, Irish etc national format and the format for the US military. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If all you need is a script that converts those cite dates to dmy or mdy, then you might try out User:Plastikspork/date.js, part of which is used in my MOSNUM script. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• The MOSNUM script calls on another formatting script for MOS compliance, including replacing hyphens with dashes, inserting nbsp into certain strings per MOSNUM, removing redundant spaces and correcting instances where words are linked and bolded by removing the bolding. I have now disabled the rules that remove bolding from linked strings, while noting that such linking of bold terms is in breach of MOS. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts, I have now unhooked the formatting script from the MOSNUM script. If anyone wants those formatting functions mentioned above, they will just have to use that script separately. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much! -Rrius (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies and Moniker

Thanks for your post. Yeah, I completely misjudged Tony - this whole Kwami thing has made me madder than you can probably understand. There's been NUMEROUS instances of problems similar to what I been going through with him, and I pulled the trigger on Tony too soon. With further investigation, my mistake on Tony became apparent. VERY embarrassing!

As to my handle, I know what you're saying, but I've had it nearly 20 years, and will keep it despite its drawbacks. I get nearly as many positive comments on it as negatives. I'm not too concerned about its effects on my credibility - will let the quality of my work carry the load on that. I do appreciate your feedback, though.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Octave Uzanne

Thanks for correcting the hyphens, dashes or whatever they are in the date ranges in the article Octave Uzanne. However, you also changed all occurrences of "cite book", "cite web", and so on to "Cite book" and so on. Please don't change the capitalization of these templates without a good reason. It doesn't change the look of the page, the working of it, or the ease of editing. In fact, the uncapitalized version is the one added by the "cite" tool in the editing bar, and could thus be considered the default. Per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:STABILITY, I'ld prefer if you didn't change these. Fram (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Me again

Hi there. Tried to use the MOSNUM script on 2011 AFL season to change to dmy dates. However, because the dates that I'm trying to change have times right after them it's not working properly (eg goes from "March 24 7:10 pm" to "24 7 March:10 pm"). Any chance you could tweak the script somehow or will I have to do it manually? Jenks24 (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Jenks! Never came across a problem like this: It seems that the date/time ought not to be formatted like this in the first place. This problem might take me a while to solve. I'll let you know when I'm ready. In the meantime, if you come across some more of this weird formatting, please be sure to let me know, as it may influence the solution to the problem! Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, now you mention it, the formatting does seem strange. It's the same in 2010 AFL season (at least that article's already in the correct dmy format), but that's the only other place I've seen it. Thanks for the offer and there's no rush for a solution. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've left a note at WT:MOSNUM to see what the folks there recommend. Then I'll work on the script as necessary. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Saw that you'd fixed this issue. I like your solution of using parentheses. Thanks for cleaning up not only the 2011 article, but all the other ones you did as well. Much appreciated, Jenks24 (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
        • You're most welcome. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Changing interwiki links

This edit at Symphony No. 1 (Mahler) performed some kind of correction on the article's interwikilinks to the Spanish, French, and Portuguese Wikipedias, making them invalid. I reverted that part of your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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