User talk:Ohconfucius/archive19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.


Here you go[edit]

User:Ohconfucius/Amina Mariam Bokhary. Looking at it again, I think the main thing should be moving from tabloid to analytical sourcing. If such sources exist, I have no idea about that. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Irena Jarocka / Antonio Berardi[edit]

Thanks for doing the clean-ups - aren't you signing up for the May Drive? Acabashi (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Francoise Hardy[edit]

For some reason your script replaced Corsica with $2. Thought you would like to know. JMcC (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Much appreciated. Will go and sort the problem out. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Alice Ward[edit]

Hi. I appreciate your advice. I didn't realize that I had come off as hostile, but like everybody I can lose my cool. I don't think I have anything to add to the Ward page, so I don't plan on editing there, although you never know what might come up. I'll just wait and see how the closing admin rules. Yours, (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't have used the word 'hostile', but I think maybe you were just a little bit aggressive in getting your point across. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. I guess getting the keyboard for me is like what getting behind the wheel of a car for others, you're in a different mode (or is it modality?). Thanks again for the advice. I do try not to bite the newbies, really I do. (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC).


An English-speaking person (Occasional lapses grate a little to anglophones) ; or relating to a place where English is spoken. (Switzerland is not an anglophone country). - OED.

This, of course, includes Desmond Tutu and S. I. Hayakawa. If you knew no better, an apology will be welcome. If you did know better, this was a spurious claim of personal attack. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr Anderson, I independently saw your comment and recoiled at an apparent racist tinge. An apology is in order now that it has been pointed out, even if good faith is assumed and you had no racist intention. Tony (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Please be more specific when you believe that abusive conduct has happened. You appear to have not clarified to PMAnderson the nature of the perceived racism until you went to ANI. You need to be specific about what the problem was so that others can review and the accused party can properly defend themselves. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries[edit]

I came across the page while wandering around - I very often don't read userpages, but your essay is compelling, and describes a serious issue, that I knew very little about. The misprint caught my eye, because I had to reread the context a couple of times, trying to fit in the "which" (what I thought it was). Trust me, the page is far from being a "mess" - if I had to describe an issue that annoying (as I sometimes do), I would often come up with the strangest verbiage. It's rare to see someone who is both angered and eloquent on wikipedia, and your essay is, as I said, compelling. Regards, Dahn (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

G12 taggings[edit]

Please be aware, if you are not already, that articles should not be tagged for G12 if there are non-infringing versions in the history - "Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained." (from the G12 criteria). As such I have removed the tag from Nayah. The page creator had already reverted to a non-infringing version. Dpmuk (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Laura Bryna[edit]

I have to question just how thoroughly you searched for sources on Laura Bryna. I re-created the article with several sources from reliable publications such as Country Standard Time and Country Weekly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

re Violette (singer)[edit]

No you make a good point. She's marginally notable at best, I don't have any other info on her, and AfD'ing would be appropriate. I had had hopes for her making a bigger splash (not that that is a very good reason for creating an article, sorry).

By the way, I notice that you took the time to actually write a handwritten note to me instead pasting a template or not communicating at all. <sarcasm>Isn't there some rule against that?</sarcasm>. Seriously, thank you for taking the time to write me a note, it is appreciated here. Herostratus (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "Isn't there some rule against that?" LOL. a surprising number of people complain about being templated... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Amina Bokhary[edit]

The current shape of this article-to-be looks good. If you don't mind I'll move the article to mainspace later today and possibly submit a DYK on it. --Deryck C. 03:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

FLG vs VOA[edit]

I noticed you have removed the reference, however, I managed to locate the VOA reference, hope that it is OK now. Arilang talk 14:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  • It was an item on television news in HK, so I guess it's OK. VOA is almost as partisan as NTDTV, but I just didn't want any Falun Gong 'pollution' of the article. I'm prepared to let this run despite believing it is not notable in the WP sense – it just seems like WP:NOTNEWS to me. Don't be surprised to see it taken to AfD. If nothing further comes of it, we should not rule out merging it into Ai Weiwei --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Though the notability may be a problem right now, my guess is that these kind of protests would become more frequent as long as Ai remains being lock up, but then, it might just as easily die down, who knows? Plus, if the PLA decide to take up legal actions, the heat would be turned up. Arilang talk 14:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad DMY dates to MDY ?[edit]

Dear Ohconfucius,

I saw you changed all the dates of the article from day-month-year to month-day-year. Could you point out to me which part of MOSNUM supports this edit?

From what I read on MOSNUM:

  • If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
  • The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

If this article may be considered strongly related to any nation, it would be of Pakistan, surely not the US or Canada (which are the only two countries in the world using this date format).

I strongly encourage you to take the time to undo your edit, which has to be done manually. In fact, I tried to revert it but several edits happened since your. As you said it used a script, I'm positive you can modify that script to change the dates back to the original format.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

Xionbox 20:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made the edit for you, but reverted myself because I take no position on which format should be used. I just wanted to make it easier for you to get your edit if you want it. All you have to do is revert my second edit. -Rrius (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my bad. I now notice that I had put them all to dmy a few days before. That edit was done late in the day. Fatigue must have set in. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you to the both you for settling this very quickly. Fatigue must have set in, talk to me about it! It happens to me all the time, so I fully understand!
Xionbox 06:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Amina Bokhary controversy[edit]

Hi, just wondering what you think about adding a BLP connected template to the talkpage as the content is all about living people, thought? Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Rob, not sure exactly what you mean, but I would have no objection in principle. Can I leave it with you? Also, thanks for your help with the technical aspects concerning this article. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I will add something, really I just want a - take care bla bla living people template but I am unsur ehow to split them I wiill ask at the help desk and I so that would automatically noindex the talkpage also because some controversial stuff may get posted there. No worries I will see what to do I just wanted to make sure you didn't object. Thanks for the thanks but you are the one that did all the work to make the content compliant with policy - well done, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK: Amina Bokhary controversy[edit]

Question for an article you wrote at DYK, Amina Bokhary controversy, waiting for you there. Cheers Khazar (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Cheers -- Khazar (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Delinking World War II[edit]

Hi Ohcon, can you not delink this? I personally know people who do not know the difference between the World Wars or when WWII was (I had one person guess it started in 1900...), and I can't imagine that kind of non-knowledge is limited to those couple of my friends. :-) Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  • ok. I do often restate it after running the script, but agree it may be better if not systematically unlinked. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bug in User:Ohconfucius/MOSNUM dates.js[edit]

Hi! I have undone a scripted edit to Paul Simonon because it introduced a "cite error". The article uses "ref" and "reference" in such a strange way that the script got confused. You might like to have a look at it. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  • First time i've seen that here too. I don't know if there's a fix. Maybe I'll just disable it for now. Thanks for notifying. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Please have a look Maoist China rhetoric and give some advice. Arilang talk 08:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Initial thoughts are that I really don't see the point. For most of the phrases, I fail to see any notability. It is well-known that rhetoric and propaganda were used extensively during the Cultural Revolution, and while one or two examples of phrases used is fine for one or other article, having a collection like this seems to me to be rather indiscriminate. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
After comparing Cultural Revolution and 文化大革命, my feeling is that it will take many more editors many years to build up the English CR. Maoist China rhetoric is just one small step towards this goal, after all, to understand CR, one needs to understand the Maoist terminology. Arilang talk 11:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The King's School, Macclesfield[edit]

I see you changed "Notable Alumni" to "Alumni" here. I've noted that with school articles both terms seem to be common, some even use "Famous" (King Edward VI Grammar School, Louth), which is definitely over-egging it, unless there are some within an alumni list who are of major historic significance and need a separate "Famous" listing. I've usually thought that adding the Notable bit deters frivolous non-notable alumnus additions - anybody studying is part of the "Alumni". Schools guidelines do seem to support listing under "Notable". Acabashi (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Admittedly I'm not familiar with school guidelines. One of the fundamental precepts of inclusion in WP is that the information must be notable. In that vein, I had always assumed that any alumnus listed is by definition notable, and use of 'notable' in the heading is redundant. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You are of course right. It does seem that "Notable Alumni" is, through common usage, the more prevalent and accepted, and is not particularly contentious. Either works I suppose, but I like the Notable as it could deter gratuitous edits by some who don't understand Wikipedia precepts and who might believe, therefore, that anybody can be added under "Alumni", particularly kids who include themselves or their mates - always a bit of a headache during school holidays. Not a big issue. Acabashi (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What you said is true: we already see instances of kids adding their names or those of their mates to lists, I'm not sure putting 'notable' in the heading is going to have any deterrent effect, but I guess it's better to remove the temptation. I need to resist the temptation to remove 'notable', because – as I said before – it seems so obvious. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

L2 in Novi Ligure murder[edit]

Hello, Ohconfucius! Thank you for checking and approving my copy edit. I saw you added "needed L2" to the article Novi Ligure murder. Of course I am sure there is a lot of learning I need, but some tips could be useful; so please could you explain what is the main problem? Best wishes. --Broletto (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry for my abbreviation. The text you ended up with was one amorphous chunk without headings. What I did in that edit was to create a new section for the details. As you will see from the diff, I separated it from the Lede by adding a level 2 heading ('==The incident=='). --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind the abbreviation! I saw the change but I thought there could be more errors, so thank you for explaining.--Broletto (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Date Formats[edit]

You changed the date formats on the Electric Palace article quoting MOSNUM as your authority, yet it clearly states:

"Edit warring over optional styles (such as 14 February and February 14) is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor"

So please leave it alone.

Davidlooser (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for quoting WP:RETAIN. That's just it... I demonstrated clearly there wasn't stability in any given style – that none could be discerned, therefore the above clause doesn't apply. What you are arguing for appears to be something called WP:OWN and WP:ILIKEIT. Now if you go and put it into a style that conforms with MOSNUM, whether that may be mmm dd, yyyy or dd mmm yyyy, then fine. If you insist on resisting, like you seem to be, then you are probably guilty of disruptive editing. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I basically agree with OhConfucius (but that's the lead section of MOS:NUM, not RETAIN). WP:DATESNO says 14 February or February 14 are OK, but not February 14th. So February 14th isn't what "optional styles" means. Art LaPella (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No response[edit]

Hi there Ohconfucius, I was wondering if you can help me out with my questions that I left on my talk page. I know you are probably busy but was wondering if you can help. Thank you so much. Dinodong (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry for not responding earlier, due to a combination of factors. I have now replied on your talk page. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE Drive[edit]

Could you just tell what you meant by WTF?--Ankit Maity Talkcontribs 07:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Apologies for the abbreviations. As far as I could tell, there was no "fruit" in your edit:
    The instance of 'in' you changed to 'at' was incorrect – you introduced a grammatical error.
    Your insertion of 'magazine' was unnecessary, as it is obvious from the opening sentence what it is; the word 'magazine' is not part of the name and just a little formatting would have left no doubt to was a publication.
    formatting of publication names is expected – instances of 'ComputerScope' should be in italics, as is required by WP:ITALICS.
    The article reads like it was written by an four-year-old. I would have expected a copyeditor to consolidate the prose to eliminate multiple instances of, for example, 'ComputerScope is/was'.
    In particular, this was written in broken or otherwise unflowing English, and I would have expected a rewrite: "ComputerScope is distributed as a request only, controlled circulation. Readers must qualify themselves before receipt. A subscription can be obtained if a reader request does not meet the criteria to receive free copies."
I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Basic copyediting, as well as our style guides to better understand what the finer points of copyediting are; another resource I found very useful is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Regards, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD dates[edit]

Please stop mass-changing yyyy-mm-dd dates to your other date formats like you did at Aircraft industry of Russia. yyyy-mm-dd is a completely valid format and was used consistently in the article (as well as in many other articles which have become victim of your format-changing edits). Your actions are in violation of WP:MOS. If you continue, you will be reported to WP:AN. Nanobear (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I see you've already received several warnings but still you did not stop. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ohconfucios_mass-changing_date_formats. Nanobear (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
You are continuing to ignore concerns raised by other editors after 1) they have raised them with you, and 2) after they have advised that the issue of your edits has been raised elsewhere. STOP! --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you not read, or are you just stupid? STOP with your edits and discuss matters that have been raised. Your ignoring these concerns is not going to go well, particularly as it appears you are aware from previous incidents that your edits are controversial. I will be going and undoing all of your edits as you are ignoring what others are saying to you. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your script[edit]

This [1] edit seems to have changed a mdy date to dmy in the main text ("On 4 and 6 July 1879"), but a dmy to an mdy date in the references ("September 7, 2010"). It also left multiple yyyy-mm-dd dates unchanged. A mistake? Fut.Perf. 17:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  • thanks for pointing out the apparent schizoid behaviour. 'The 4 and 6 July' was manual. I have aligned the others to dmy now. The yyyy-mm-dd dates are from transcluded census templates, so need to be dealt with separately. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got a response[edit]

At Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Correcting_links_to_redirected_article :)

The Helpful One 18:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive update[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive update
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your mid-drive newsletter.

GOCE May 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs

So far, 54 people have signed up for the drive, and 33 are actively participating. If you signed up for the drive but have not 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 have not signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. If you have questions about getting started, feel free to talk to us. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. We currently have 17 articles awaiting edit.

Progress report

We are making slow progress on achieving our target of reducing the overall backlog by 15%; in order to accomplish this goal we will need to complete about 400 more articles. However, we are making good progress on the 2009 backlog, as we have eliminated over half of the articles from 2009 that were present at the start of the drive. Let's concentrate our fire power on the remaining months from 2009; leaderboard awards will be handed out for 2009 articles this drive. Thank you for participating in the May 2011 drive. We hope it will be another success!

Your drive coordinators – S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Amina Bokhary controversy DYK[edit]

This DYK nomination was promoted to the queues but I have returned it to T:TDYK per legitimate concerns raised at WT:DYK. Sorry about that. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting delink of DVD in MOSNUM script[edit]

Just noticed a curious potential side effect in MOSNUM dates.js. It concerns this statement in Ohc_code_delink_dates() under the decades/years portion:

txt.value=txt.value.replace(/\[\[([MDCLXVI]{3,10})\]\]/g, '$1');

It seems to delink DVD, which is not a valid Roman number, although arguably a common enough term that may warrant delinking anyway. However, some combinations of Roman numeral letters could represent links for less common terms e.g. MIDI, which is actually a redirect that should be refactored. However, you might want to watch for occasional false positives here. The solution to this could get a bit complex, and maybe not a high priority fix, but the approach could be to add the regex chains to validate for the Roman numeral ordering e.g. MIDI is invalid since the first I (1) is followed by D (500) - I should only appear towards the end, or as part of IX (9).

Also, thanks for the recent input involving Bcharles on my talk pg. Dl2000 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll disable that rule, as Roman numerals seem to be hardly ever linked anyway to warrant creating ever more specific regex. I now watch your page as well as your datefix in case there are bug reports, and I suggest you equally watch mine. BTW, I have been making some changes to the dates script - many are mere tweaks, but some are bug fixes. I doubt any of my changes will stump you, as you seem to be a more advanced scripter than me, but please let me know if anything is unclear. Incidentally, I have written a common terms script which will unlink DVD, among others ;-). --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have a false positive. I tweaked the regex last night, thinking I must have got it, but I still have the same error. I'm tearing my hair out – what's left of it. Can you help? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Assuming the false positive was about situations like "January 4, 37–29 at" --> "4, 37–29 January", it seems to be done under the first rule under "//convert md,d,d, date ranges to d,d,dm (multiple, separated by commas)". The regex reformats "January 4, 6–8" --> "4, 6–8 January" OK, but it will also reformat scores which immediately follow dates.
You could tighten this part of the rule to avoid dates > 31 with a change like this:
  • (existing) ((?:,?\s[0-3]?\d(?:th|st|nd|rd|)){0,6})
  • (modified to limit to 30/31) ((?:,?\s([0-2]?\d|30|31)(?:th|st|nd|rd|)){0,6})
However, it is not a complete solution as it won't be able to tell whether the 6–8 is a date or a score in the example of "January 4, 6–8".
In such cases, it may be better to manually tweak the prose to properly separate scores away from dates, to avoid making the score look like its part of the date range e.g. "on January 4, 37–29 at Lansdowne Road," could be refactored to "on 4 January at Lansdowne Road (37–29)". I'll have to take a more detailed look at how the regex could work for this, but I've tended to just fix such occasional article anomalies manually.
Dl2000 (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Yes, that was the string causing the problem. I agree that the way the text was written is problematic/ambiguous, and was going to refactor it. However, my request to you was due to my frustration to find the error persisting after considerable tweaking, which included the modification you suggested above. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I now realise I am using my alternate script. No wonder the changes did not have any effect! --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


you need to expand your script: South African topics require {{South African English}}. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The Engvar script, which spurred my setting up the {{Use British English}} template as a maintenance task, contains a list of spellings I believe to be common to English, Scottish, Irish, Australian, South African. I do not intend to build anything any more complex than a common set of spellings that use the template. Therefore, I do not believe we will ever need to use templates other than 'British', 'Canadian' and Oxford'. Notwithstanding that, {{South African English}} can stay on the talk page as a visible reminder. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hm. And what then is the difference between British and Canadian? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Nevermind -- saw your additional explanation in the template's documentation. I will re-instate it then where I had already reverted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have put that on the template doc long time ago. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

copyright investigation[edit]

I don't mean to rush you, but since google books is entangled in a copyright legal battle and some books are having a tendency to dissapear, the case needs to be worked on sooner, before the googlebooks linked i posted are either deleted or evaporated. Unlike any of the other copyvio cases, in mine, you have straight access right to the source- its in danger of dissapearing if you don't act upon it soon.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

google library project faces copyright issues[

Google in $13m legal fight over scanned books

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Дунгане

Your edit on STS-51-L[edit]

Hi there,

Your edit on STS-51-L today broke the table in the Mission parameters section. I'm not going to revert it because you had other edits outside of that table and I don't want to revert them too. It would be appreciated it you could fix it. Thanks! -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 22:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Date script?[edit]

Hey, what happened to your script? When I edit a page now, I don't get the script links on the left side. I know there was some controversy about the script on AIN or some other noticeboard, which I contributed to, but I don't know what came of it (and can't find it now). Anyway, I wanted to change the date format on an article with the script but can't. Please tell me it still exists.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  • It could have something to do with those changes I made yesterday which I have now reversed for the time being. see if this brings back the script. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
In that case, import User:Ohconfucius/MOSNUM_dates_prime.js instead of MOSNUM dates.js. I'm using it this very minute, so I know it works. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Should I remove the other?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they will interfere with one another. BTW, I note that you are still having problems with the mediawiki software. If this script doesn't work, then I'd blame the foundation. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The links have come back when using the prime script. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for letting me know. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I've now replaced the contents of the original MOSNUM script with a working version. It's preferable that you use something which is not my testing ground, so could you go back to using User:Ohconfucius/MOSNUM dates.js? Thanks. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 23:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
MOSNUM script now at User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ohc, I updated the location of the script per above, but I'm again not getting the links on the left when I edit a page. Did I do something wrong?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  :-( I've tried it on three accounts, and it's loading properly. I have the buttons on the sidebar, and the script is doing its thang. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's working now. After changing the location of the script, I refreshed twice before posting here. I have no idea why it started to work. Oh, well, nothing has been going well on Wikipedia for me lately.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads up. I occasionally have glitches, but I have still managed to do several hundred edits today. Among those, there have been a few improper page loads, and many slow script loads. The MediaWiki software has been buggy for two weeks now; it was wonderfully smooth just prior to that. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Major reorganisation of my subpages[edit]

I have just undertaken a wholescale reorganisation of the structure of pages in my userspace, and would apologise in advance to any disruption to scripts etc. If a script you are currently using has ceased to function, please go to the relevant subsection to find the new address and relink accordingly. I would urge/remind you to bookmark the scripts you use to follow their evolution. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Great Arkansas Barnstar[edit]

WikiProject Arkansas Barnstar.png The Great Arkansas Barnstar
Thanks for your work cleaning up 39th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States) and related articles on the Arkansas National Guard. Thanks! Aleutian06 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am very appreciative of you efforts at correcting my date formats. I always wondered why there wasn't a bot for this!. Would you consider doing the same thing for 206th Field Artillery Regiment (United States). Happy Editing! Aleutian06 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your work in recent days on Arkansas Guard related articles. I wonder if you could do a copy edit on this article also? 153rd Infantry Regiment (United States) Aleutian06 (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I've done a bit of work on the article as requested. Please could you just check the diffs to make sure I haven't changed the meaning of anything I ought not to have. You will notice that I have removed certain text, citing 'trivia'. You may want to put these back if they are in any way significant – just that I couldn't see any importance when I read through the article, but you may know something I do not. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the "bit of work"! I added back one bit of trivia which included a reference to a letter in which a 153rd soldier is describing being in combat. I actuall have a little more information now on what became of the soldiers after they were used as replacements that I need to add to this article. Thanks again for all your help. Aleutian06 (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Dates in tables[edit]

Since you appear to be a "date" enthusiast, I wonder if you can help me with an issue with the dates in a table. I edit the Arkansas Militia in the Civil War. One of the tables has the date that various units were formed. This is a sortable table. It would be very help full if the date column could be sorted, but currently the dates are in the Day/Month/Year format. Interestingly, the main source for this table, "List of Militia Officers, 1827-1862" uses Year/Month/Day. I think the table would sort properly if this date was utilized throughout the table. I think Month/Day/Year is more appropriate for the text of this article, since that seems to be the common usage of the time period. Any thoughts? Aleutian06 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I've put in a sortable criterion for dates in that table that allows display in dmy. I hope that it now works as you expect it. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Outstanding! Thanks very much.Aleutian06 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Army in World War II book series[edit]

Please note the titles in this series have the periods (".") after "U" and "S". As a broader suggestion, editing the titles of works listed as sources in articles is probably not a good idea unless one is absolutely certain the title has been presented in error. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Image filenames[edit]

Please be more careful when you are editing dates. I've recently fixed at least half a dozen image links that were broken by you. --Zundark (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC) where? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Parties in the European Council during 2005, History of the France national football team, FC Girondins de Bordeaux, European Council, Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011, and at least one other that I can't find at the moment. --Zundark (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK Comments on Badai Pasti Berlalu (x4) and Marga T[edit]

Hi, I have replied to your comments at the DYK nomination of Badai Pasti Berlalu (song, film, novel, and album) and Marga T. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again[edit]

Recently I am into argument with user:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ in a big way at Talk:Boxer Rebellion#Lead section, resulting in me firing up an ANI at him, see [2] my key argument is ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's editing on Boxer Rebellion is mostly biased and non-neutral, in violation of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, so someone need to tell him to stop. Instead of engaging other editors to thrash out the neutrality issue, he turn around and attack me using same old accusations plucking from those previous ANI on me.

If you have some free time please have a look and maybe make some comments? Thanks. Arilang talk 13:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


Much as I understand that the dispute seems to have escalated to a personal level, I would appreciate it if you would not allow this to spill over onto my talk page. If/when I have time, I will go and look at the dispute and see what assistance I can offer. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible oversight in -slash-dates conversions[edit]

Just did a few tests tonight - noticed that when US-slash-dates is used on your script, 12/5/1982 remains intact and doesn't convert to a MoS-compliant date, although 12/05/1982 will. Seems OK for day >= 10 e.g. 12/13/1982 converts. UK-slash-dates may be more problematic, as it doesn't seems to convert either 4/1/1982 or 4/01/1982, although 04/1/1982 and 04/01/1982 seem to convert OK. You could make a copy of some test cases in User:Dl2000/testtemp7. Dl2000 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I might have been concerned at the risk of false positives, but I've now enabled conversion by my test script of those dates without leading zeros in either month or day. Note that some images are coded with slash dates, which may be converted by the script as it stands. However, as it's an additional/optional button, it should hopefully not be too much of an issue. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing date formats on US related articles[edit]

I noticed you were changing the date format on a lot of articles and thought I would stop by and discuss it. Although I do not have a preference myself I wanted to stop and note that even within the military either format of DD MMM YYYY or MMM DD, YYYY are acceptable depending on the type of correspondance being used and who does it. For example the Navy Corresponence manual states on page 2-11 that either format is acceptable and in certain cases one is preferred over the other. --Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the information. I was only aware that the older Milhist articles usually follow mdy format. Many of these articles have a mix of formats, and I had assumed, through my reading of MOSNUM, that by WIkipedia definition US Military uses dmy so I set about unifying the dates. SO far, nobody has raised any objection - indeed one Milhistorian awarded me a barnstar yesterday for my efforts. There are many more that haven't been done. Perhaps I shall move onto something else for a week or two and allow the comments if there are any to catch up. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to disuade you from doing them and I also notice that many articles use a combination of formats I just wanted to mention it. I think the Army is more stingent on the use of one format over another but I am more familiar with US navy and Marine Corps usage than Army usage. --Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand. I think in that case I will drive on with US Army articles. Or I will work on other categories for now. There's plenty of work to go around, but it makes life much simpler to be able to sail through any given category and not have to think/worry about which script button to activate. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand, I have spent the last few days (and a couple more to go) identifying the articles in WPUS (mostly the Biographies for now) that are missing Infoboxes. Once I am done I will start adding some of them (I'll probably start with the US military related ones since that will be a win for both projects and right now the MILHIST project is more active than US. My guess is that if people start seeing edits being made to articles on their watchlist they will probably do a couple too thereby improving the articles. Of course there is only so much I can do when adding an Infobox in a semi automated fashion but at least it will be there so someone else can fill in the rest. --Kumioko (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, an edit to a neglected or forgotten article certainly wakes me up to its existence on my watchlist, and occasionally causes me to make a flurry of edits! --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


I am very surprised to see that no admin care to either comment or close the ANI, it looks like everyone just leave it as it is. What happen when argument flares up again at Boxer Rebellion? Arilang talk 11:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, there is no obligation for anyone to comment or close ANI threads. Many are simply archived when the community loses interest, or when both parties have exhausted their arguments. I think it is quite clear that the community believes you have both behaved abominably, and that discussing the matter or taking sides in any way will just fan the flames that had engulfed both of you. My advice is that you should both assume a greater amount of good faith in each other in future, exercise better self-discipline going forwards. You should try giving yourself more time to think through both side's arguments rationally and with a cool head. Above all, you should avoid making any criticisms of a personal nature or comments which could be interpreted as personal attacks. I'm sorry for the 'lecture'. I also appreciate that it is easier to say than to carry out what I recommend. I hope you will continue to work hard on your editing as well as interpersonal skills, which will benefit your life and dealings outside Wikipedia. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comment, I promise there would not be any more this sort of "abnormal" and unnecessary stuff from me. Arilang talk 12:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

New article[edit]

When you have time please have a look:List of 1900-1930 publications on Boxer Rebellion, please help out on WP issues. Arilang talk 01:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, since no admin care to make any further comment, and if any argument flare up again in future, please advice on what other steps can I take, like what is the next higher level I can go? Like WP:Arbitration ? Arilang talk 04:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If you are sincerely going to stop this "abnormal and unnecessary stuff", I would suggest that you stopped thinking about escalation or arbitration. My advice would be to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, then when you have calmed down sufficiently (like taking two weeks away from 'Boxer'), go back to the war zone and try and figure out exactly what happened to cause the flare-up – looking not only at how the other party committed wrongs. Try to examine objectively what you may have done wrong, and acknowledge what you were feeling at certain key moments (i.e. when you read certain replies). Think about and how, if given a similar situation, you would listen to what was actually said and not what you think was said, and try to react differently to produce a satisfactory yet harmonious outcome instead of an acrimonious one. Having said that, I'm not saying that it will be possible to get along with absolutely everybody, as it might mean giving up your principles. I hope you can proceed down this path of self-discovery. Arbitration really is a last resort. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
What would he telling us: "the chinese government/chinese textbooks is forbidden as off topic on the talk page of the Boxer Rebellion ", isn't he setting up his own rule, ignoring and rejecting WP Neutrality rule? Arilang talk 05:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you, Ohconfucius, for your recent helpful edit to the new article I created, at Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Scripts[edit]

Hello, Ohconfucius. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BR dispute[edit]

In the past month, I only made a single, trivial edit to the boxer rebellion article, but I find this WP:CANVASS which he is conducting, to be of the purpose of driving me out of wikipedia, rather than trying to genuinely implement policy. the ANI is already closed.

he began his canvassing 3 days after I took a 72 hour break from editing.....

Canvass says- "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions."

He doesn't appear to be following that, especially the "keep the message text neutral"

canvassing 1 canvassing 2 canvassing 3 canvassing 4 canvassing 5 canvassing 6

3 calls by him to have me permanently banned previously-

thus he should be barred from editing, to stop him from poisoning this encyclopedic building project...

thus he should be barred from editing, to stop him from poisoning this encyclopedic building project...

he should be given a indefinite ban...

this dispute is over- it wasn't even about my or his actualy edits to the article- it was about mudslingling and POV pushing on the talk page, the discussion at the talk page is no longer active

I agreed to a permanent interaction ban with him, and I even stopped editing for a 72 hour break per User:Rocksanddirt's suggestion that both of us do so, (see my edit history), no edits between may 24 and may 28ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

informed of interaction ban[edit]

we've been advised now to stop interacting and to stop prolonging the dispute, i guess we'll just wait and see if any further inflamation comes up, if it doesn't, this dispute is over.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, I noticed that, and I think that is good advice. He promised me above that he would put a stop to the nonsense, yet Arilang doesn't seem to want to let go. I hope he realises that if there is any hint of trouble, a site ban isn't far off. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Date and common link scripts[edit]

Hey, I been using your scripts for a while now and the links are no longer in my toolbox. I came here to see if I could figure out why, and read the threads above and changed the "import links" I thought. Still no links for the scripts. If you have second could you check a see if I've do the changes correctly ? [5]. Thanx
Mlpearc powwow 02:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I see that you are importing the test script, which is unstable. I constantly fiddle with it, which often causes script fatalities. Try importing the production script instead. It is the stable version. I have just tried it again on my alternate account, and it loads. Hope that solves your problem. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool, I'll give it a go in the morning. Thanx Mlpearc powwow 03:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My music list[edit]


Thanks for those changes lol :¬) I was just quickly typing them from my Windows Media Player playlist, it seems there is no easy way to import a playlist into a text editor :¬(

I still have a load to do, as well as some funky linking that needs correcting such as Saliva lol! Chaosdruid (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Your's is much bigger than mine, so you have your work cut out. Can you not export songlists from iTunes any more? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry I didn't read your message properly. Perhaps you should junk WMP, then? ;-)

GOCE drive conclusion[edit]

Hi, Ohconfucius. The May drive just ended ends tomorrow, so I was wondering if you could substitute a snapshot of the sidebar on the May drive page, like you did for March? That would be great. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 00:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Sure. I'm not around at exactly 0.00 UTC, but I'll do like I did last time and hope things haven't moved between the deadline and when I take the snapshot. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits[edit]

My suggestion to you is before removing longstanding imagery from important articles on important artists like Monet, Degas, Gauguin you make your suggestion on the talk page and wait for consensus...Modernist (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Hi Ohconfucius. this edit to The Dreamers (film) has an edit summary that does not relate to the edit. I have no problem with the edit, but maybe the edit summary was generated automatically in which case there's something wrong with the way it's doing it. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I'll have to have a re-think... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I've now re-written the general edit summary, and included a link to an intermediate page which explains the consolidated script actions. Hopefully this level of transparency is to your liking. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's much clearer now. Clarity is the key point, not "liking" or perhaps even "transparency" (folks can always look at the diff). Thanks for responding! --Northernhenge (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Christine Lagarde[edit]

Hi Ohconfucius, dont you think that the 2nd pic of Christine Lagarde should be placed on the left of da page? It looks better for the eye and the readers. Regards.--Cruks (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree that it seems more natural for her face to be pointed towards the document (and not away from it), but this article's so short. The positioning now clashes with the section headings. :-( --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Please have a look:Qing Dynasty Royal Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol , and please suggest ways to improve it at your convenient. Arilang talk 12:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again[edit]

Please have a look:1900 National Upheaval, and offer some comments on how to improve it, thanks. Arilang talk 09:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


I've lost use of all my scripts. I have cleared my cache. I am using Firefox and Monobook. I have tried using IE and switching to Vector. I have deleted all my scripts and reloaded them. Nothing. I removed Twinkle. Nothing. Any suggestions? SilkTork *Tea time 09:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Steve, You mean all your scripts are not loading, and not just mine? I notice that you only import my 'common terms' script. Its location has changed and you need to change the line for it in your monobook and vector accordingly from 'User:Ohconfucius/Common Terms.js' to 'User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js'. It may restore your other scripts, but I would be surprised... I don't know what would cause scripts to fail to load on a wholescale basis exxept something at Mediawiki level. BTW, I am not experiencing problems with loading scripts at present. I have one confirmation that the common terms script is working. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, every script. Pc and laptop. I will delete them and load one at a time. SilkTork *Tea time 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive report
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating!

GOCE May 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs

There were 63 signups for the drive; of these, 45 participated. Although we did not award a bonus for articles from the Requests page this drive, we are not experiencing lengthy delays in getting the articles processed. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog.

Progress report

During the month of May we reduced the backlog by approximately 10%, and made remarkable progress on eliminating articles tagged from 2009. There are now only 15 articles left, down from the 415 that were present when the drive started. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 54% 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 June drive has started.

Coodinator election

The six-month term for our first tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the second tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your project coordinators are S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), Tea with toast (Talk), Chaosdruid (talk), and Torchiest (talk).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Many thanks for removing the bolding. Probably does not need any punctuation around the brand names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Monopoly (game)[edit]

Hi. I Like you edits on the Monopoly page, however the flags for Japan seem to have been "broken". Cheers. MrMarmite (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mattel - Thanks[edit]

Thank you for fixing my citing on Mattel#Asia Pulp and Paper Controversy. I'm still getting used to the citing arguments and I appreciate you helping me with it. BordenRhodes (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tema Oil Refinery[edit]

Thanks for the review. I am fine with your suggested hook. Could you please accord the right DYK tag to the hook now. Thanks. A friend called-- CrossTempleJay  → talk 14:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Refs for FAC[edit]

Hi there, I see that you've put 2010 Nobel Peace Prize up for FAC. I was looking at the references section and it isn't consistent enough to pass FAC (ie I'm fairly sure Nikkimaria or Brianboulton would comment on the inconsistencies and possibly even oppose until they are consistent). I thought about commenting on it myself, but I've found it's generally much more effective if I offer to help tidy up the refs, rather than make comments at the FAC. In any case, I'm willing to help tidy up the refs (if you'll have me) and I would start immediately, but there are a few things I need to know before I start. I assume you prefer the cite news/web style (as opposed to the non-templated styles currently in use)? Do you want to have the publisher and location for every ref (it has to be all or none)? For denoting non-English sources do you prefer it done as in ref 38 or ref 68 (I would recommend 68, but that's just my personal preference)? Do you want translated titles for every non-English ref (again, I'm fairly sure it has to be all or none)? Do you want the newspaper/publisher to always be wikilinked, never be wikilinked, or only wikilinked on first usage? Hope I'm not bothering you, but I genuinely think this will help it pass FAC. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. I'd be glad and indeed privileged to have you on board. I actually hate the templated refs, but use them for the sake of expediency, to achieve the desired rendered output for a large number of bare links (large being a number greater than 3 - that's where the economy of effort comes in). I would remove them all if I could, but it's more trouble than it's worth. Of course, I would never change any refs from a non-templated to a templated unless it was done by WP:Reflinks. Consistency is all very good, but I believe we also need to accept a degree of heterogeneity in this imperfect world. I find there are those who will anally fill in all and every parameter as if it were obligatory, and it bugs me no end. Sure it would make for consistency, but you will have a lot of redundancy and clutter. You may be interested in a conversation on this very subject on NM's talk page.
As far as refs go, you won't be surprised to know I use a script to achieve that to a degree. The principles I try to achieve are as follows:
  • I do not like to see links other than the cited source in the refs section, so no links at all (or one link max per title, if it's a very obscure one) to journals;
  • names of publishers are rarely necessary in everyday news sources; if linked, then per above
  • as indicated on the doc to the citation templates, publication locations are given only where the source is not well-known (i.e. not BBC or CNN) or this isn't obvious from the journal name (San Francisco Chronicle vs The Telegraph); I tend to use country and not city locations.
  • where a journal is traditional media (e.g. The Times) and its online version (e.g. Times Online) is cited, I always change the latter to the former, and italicise.
  • publication locations are not given for e-sources;
  • language is only indicated where it is not in English
  • The reason why there is '|language=Chinese' and {{zh icon}} is probably due to the use of the cite templates, where there is an inbuilt language parameter. I actually prefer the zh icon because it stands out more.
  • I have seen opposing views about unofficial (and unsourced) translations, and think on balance they are unnecessary. The reader will either be able to read the FL source, in which case there's no problem, or he/she won't, so the title only helps to understand the headline; a bad translation misleads.
Based on the above principles, I'd say the refs are not as inconsistent as they would appear at first glance. However, you have more experience of how the reviewers are likely to react, so perhaps I'd also leave you with some discretion to ignore. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, like Nikkimaria, I hadn't thought of using the "|location=" as a form of disambiguation. Interesting. I'll have a crack at tidying them up, but I won't add/remove locations for the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Done :) There are still a few inconsistencies, eg you use "(Hong Kong)" for about 50% of the South China Morning Post refs (same issue, to a lesser extent, for The Independent and The Standard. I've delinked quite a few, so you may want to relink a couple if you thought they were obscure enough to need to a link. Ref 88 is a dead link (noted by Brianboulton at the FAC) and I've had a look at the LA Times website and the wayback machine and I can't find a way to make it 'un-dead'. Perhaps you will know a way, but otherwise it should be replaced. For all the foreign language sources, I've given a translated title (using google translate), so some off them look a bit off. I thought it was a good idea at the time, but looking back it might be better to have no translation, rather than an obviously rubbish one. Anyway, that's up to you (and if you speak Chinese and can improve the translation, that'd be great). Also, I'm not really sure if I did the right thing with ref 36. Have a look and tell me if you think there's a better solution. I'll go and note at the FAC that I've fixed all, but the last two of Brian's issues; those two I'll leave to you. Jenks24 (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Just want to express my appreciation for your work: I do not recall having to jump through so many hoops just on punctuation for the refs the last time I went through FAC. I made some more tweaks, many of the Chinese translations were way off; I hope that Norwegian ones are better! Just thought I'd point out something that tripped you up: Chinese conventionally put family names first. Also, there are a couple of pseudonyms in use in the refs – 'Bei Feng' is one, and 'Alfred' is another – and I'm not quite sure how to show these. #36 looks fine by me. I followed all instances SCMP with '(Hong Kong)', but then decided it perhaps wasn't needed at all. Also unsure of how Christian Science Monitor (used in their capacity as an agency) should be displayed in #104. Let me know what you think... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No worries :) Thanks for fixing up the Chinese translations – some of them were terrible, but I think the other Swedish/Norwegian/French ones are better. At least they all make sense. Thanks for fixing up the Chinese names as well; as I was going through I was a bit unsure and I'd meant to ask you about it. For the pseudonyms, I've seen people put [pseud.] after the author's name to signify it and I can't think of a better idea off the top of my head. Glad to hear #36 looks good. As to #104, it looks fine to me. I think it's fine to use Christian Science Monitor as an agency as the article says "From the Christian Science Monitor News Service" and that's the way that agencies have been styled throughout (eg Reuters, Agence France-Presse). Perhaps I've misunderstood you question, though? Jenks24 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It's fine, we're on the same page. We'll wait and see how the reviewers react to the usage of CSM, amongst other things ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Howling Bells (album) and Radio Wars (album)[edit]

Thanks for catching the mistakes of American English on these two articles. I saw in the headline above your reasoning for the removal of publishers from refs is really just a matter of preference. For these two articles the facts are, I'm a major contributor, you're not. I'm the one who nominated it for GA, not you. Changes like that are made at my discretion. Mattchewbaca (meow) 02:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, whatever... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mairead Maguire[edit]

A recent contribution of yours at the Mairead Maguire page consisted of a large number of changes to the text and references. Many of these resulted in the corruption of direct quotations from reliable sources. Please review Wikipedia's guidelines at MOS:QUOTE and undo those changes that contravene the requirement to "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." Failure to undo these edits soon will result in my mass-reverting the entire diff and restoring the article to its earlier form.Biosketch (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Will look at it. There's no need to resort to threats. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
That came out different from how I intended it to sound. What I meant to say is that it's a lot of changes for me to go through one-by-one and you'd need to start from the beginning.—Biosketch (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and I apologise for the glitches. Hopefully, I have now fixed those that were at issue. I will adjust my script in due course --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
How come you changed instances of "antisemitic" and "antisemitism" to "anti-semitic" and "anti-semitism"? Be advised that I reverted to the unhyphenated spellings, in case this is something you feel strongly about.—Biosketch (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It's OK by me. Thanks for letting me know. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference cleanup on Burj Khalifa[edit]

Thank you for your recent edit on Burj Khalifa which cleaned up many date formats in the references. Unfortunately, amongst the changes, you indavertently changed "|publisher=" to "|work=" on many references. Please note that newspapers, magazines and their websites generally have publishers rather then being the work of an individual, therfore the "publisher" parameter is appropiate in these cases. I have reverted some of yopur change for this reason.

On a slightly different matter, in the same edit you added the convert template to an inline comment which explains to editors why the convert template should not be used in the sentence which follows. Adding the convert template to this place made the note harder to read because it is never processed like regular article text and convert is never processed. Please take care with such edits to ensure they are useful. Astronaut (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Journal names are italicised by convention, and the use of the '|work=' parameter versus the '|publisher=' parameter is typically used to manage italicisation. Journal names such as The New York Times belongs in the '|work=' field. iI would refer you to documentation of the {{citation}} templates for further details. Publisher fields are largely unnecessary, except where the journals are obscure, or when the reference text is a book. As to the {{convert}} template, yes, I see your point that it was in a comment. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OhConfucius![edit] seem to be following me around, tidying up after me! Maybe in a few days you might take a little look at Architecture of ancient Greece which is undergoing a major overhaul. It is about to be renamed "Ancient Greece", incidentally. I think that the person who reduced the "a" to an l.c. didn't quite understand. Amandajm (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  • It doesn't seem to problematic from my usual style perspective, but I did just put a couple of links in. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea because I see the article is in full evolution/revolution. I was running down the most visible articles in each project, and I touched upon yours. I saw your note at the article and would agree that there is a lot of work-in-progress, and an even greater acceptance that Wikipedia is a work in progress, but that it is certainly sad to find one of the highest profile articles in the realm of architecture in such a lamentable state. It's great that you are rolling your sleeves up on this one. Good luck with your continued effort, and will revisit the article in perhaps a week to see what I can do. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)



I have just finished a copyedit of Dennis Elwell (astrologer). This article had generated much acrimony, and warring, between two editors which can be seen on the article talk page and the relevant users’ talk pages – I have not seen the like. I managed to negotiate a truce and have worked on the article for many hours as an accepted neutral party. Part of the deal with these editors was that I would try to get a review from two editors who I know are very experienced. I set out my stall on Talk:Dennis Elwell (astrologer), and I think I have gone as far as I can.

Problems might be the veracity of citations, but I made no judgment through the extreme sensitivities involved.

I am hoping that you (who have been tough on my edits – particularly weakness in lists) and/or User:SMasters, will look at the article, pass judgment, and make any adjustments that you feel fit.

Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

MOSNUM Changes[edit]


I saw that you made a number of automated changes in the East Falkland and West Falkland articles including giving imperial units precedence over metric units. Please stop this now - I am revering these changes. In the case of artciles connected with the Falkland Islands, please see WP:FALKLANDSUNITS for agreement on use of units of measure. If you do not like the way in which those standards have been published, please raise an RFC. I do not like that article either - I would much rather see units of measure aligned with what appears in most of the soruce material.

Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  • My edit did not cause any interference with the source material. You will notice that it is a simple addition to the template which flips it from metric first (default) to imperial. There is no conversion-reconversion, and I didn't think there needs to be such a big deal. As the falklands is a British protectorate/territory, British units should apply; there is certainly overkill to have a style guideline which covers approximately 50 articles, when there isn't one to cover British ones. I don't want to precipitate another Falklands War, so have it your way! Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi OhConfucius
I agree that FALKLANDSUNITS is overkill and I would gladly see it go, but due to personalities of the editors involved in writing the Falkland Islands articles this will not happen unless Arbcom order it. However I think that metric units should take precedence for three reasons:
  • Almost all Falkland Island source material uses metric units
  • In the case of British territories, WP:MOSNUM leaves matters up to consensus and in my experience British encyclopeadic material is in metric units as is teaching in the schools - see Metrication in the United Kingdom.
  • The UK and Argentina have an on-going dispute regarding sovereignty in the Falklands. Since metric units are used far more in the UK than imperial units in Argentina, Wikipedia should, in deference to WP:NPOV, give metric units preference in this family of articles.
I trust that this explains my approach. Martinvl (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for taking the time to explain to me the issues/case with these islands' articles. Regards, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi OhConfucius,
I see that you have revisited the articles East Falkland and West Falkland. I have had to manually undo some of your changes. Before you apply any scripts to the Falkland Islands articles again, please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Archive (Units) and read WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Regards
Martinvl (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I revisited the article to restore some of the other changes you apparently had no objection to. However, I forgot that I had jigged my script to include the flipping. Apologies for that. I have now disabled that function (I have to click on a separate button to activate it now). --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Martinvl (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:20110614ITN.GIF[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:20110614ITN.GIF. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Major League Baseball[edit]

You ran a cleanup at this article earlier today, but in doing such you removed legitimate links to the specific "xxxx in baseball" articles. I don't think that falls under the idea of WP:MOSUNLINKDATES, as these are specific articles on the history in that field in that year, where there's elaboration on the topics. These sort of links are proper pointers, per WP:SUMMARY and shouldn't be unlinked. But I'd be willing to hear arguments otherwise, or a pointer to a previous discussion on this. oknazevad (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  • A diff would help me see what specific edit you are referring to, but I can probably find it as I haven't edited many baseball articles in the last few days. FYI, I do not unlink [[2009 in baseball]], but I recall there is consensus to remove such piped links [[2009 in baseball|2009]] within the running text. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Portman pops![edit]

Hey, I saw you happened to be the one who was the most recent to edit the Portman article. She has just given birth to a son, and apparently I'm one of the first to hear of this amazing news - or else they just don't want to put it on Wikipedia yet! Since I can't edit the protected page, would you mind adding it to the article? Thanks in advance. Here and here. (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done so already. Congrats, Natalie! :) Dasani 01:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin Luther[edit]

Hi Ohconfucius, I've reinstated a link that your removed from Martin Luther - he certainly did influence the German language. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Arkansas Territorial Militia[edit]

Would you work your wordsmithing/datesmithing majic on Arkansas Territorial Militia. Thanks. Aleutian06 (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall[edit]

Why on earth did you remove all of those links on the article? None of those terms, instruments, publishers, etc. should be linked? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I see mein freund Tony has commented to you about his views on linking, which I largely share. I would nevertheless respond to elaborate my rationale. It was a purely script edit, and I would usually go a lot further in unlinking if I was to work on the article manually. I would comment on the specific removals as follows:
  • [[live album]], [[double album]], [[Documentary film|documentary]], [[Broadway theatre|Broadway]], [[gay icon]], [[earring]]s, [[lipstick]], [[photography]], [[guitar]], [[piano]], [[orchestra]]
    I believe these are generic or everyday terms that do not deepen the readers' understanding of the subject of the article. These links appear to be used, as has been habitual in some quarters, to give explanations to their meaning without imparting any specific focus relating to the subject. A list of words/terms I find to be more often than not linked without a good enough reason can be found here – these are systematically removed by script
  • [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]], [[Entertainment Weekly]], [[NME]], [[Rolling Stone]], [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]
    These are among the most well-known publications in the world. Like the BBC, I would expect the reader to know about these, and to look them up separately if they did not (and were curious). In addition, if there is a specific element within the source document that is cited/quoted directly, the journal's name would appear in the running text of the article; it will most likely be linked at its first appearance. I consider in most other cases, sources are fungible (ie it wouldn't make much difference if we substituted another source) and do not merit linking. The references section is often dense with distracting links that do not like to see links other than the cited source article there, unless perhaps it's a very obscure journal.
  • [[The Guardian]], [[The Observer]], [[The New York Times]], [[Herald Sun]], [[The Times]], USA Today
    Per response directly above
  • [[IPC Media]], [[Time Inc.|Time Inc]], [[Condé Nast Publications]], [[The New York Times Company]], Gannett Company, [[Guardian Media Group]]
    In most cases for news reports, including the publisher name is unnecessary – document at {{citation}} also says this; the publications themselves are often more well-known than their publishers. Case in point here.
  • [[London]], [[Paris]], [[Los Angeles]], [[California]]
    Removed links to major geographic features and locations, as explicitly given in WP:OVERLINK
  • [[singer-songwriter]] [[Conducting|conducted]], [[fashion design]]er, [[Film director]]
    Removed links to common professions, as explicitly given in WP:OVERLINK
I trust this deals with your query and your concerns. Regards, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. --03:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A request for help[edit]

I've been asked for help but can't do it. Please can you help with the request at User_talk:Lightmouse#The_Human_Centipede_.28First_Sequence.29. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Erik (talk | contribs) 16:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for helping out with this! cya Coolug (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
yer welcome! I do hundreds of these, so do give me a shout if you would need some more done anytime. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 23:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Sorry for the alarming header, but your script appears to be defective. Unlinking all the publishers and works is one thing (and you may meet resistance there), but removing the |publisher= field altogether, as you've done on several articles (I can find diffs if you need me to), appears to be an error. Could you stop the script run until this is resolved? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, Harry, I have been tweaking my script lately. I have been selectively removing a limited group of publishers from citation templates for a while, mostly accompanied by manual adjustments. You probably noticed it more as I had expanded its scope of the automated operation.

    Names of publishers are rarely necessary in everyday news sources; it is not a requirement of WP:CITE#Journal_articles. My view is that the reader will know about 'publishers' such as BBC, CBC, and readers will look them up separately only if they were curious. Many other 'works' themselves are better-known than their publishers. It is those that I am targeting. Using the example of such an edit discussed above, I question the necessity of the 'publisher=' field to include IPC Media, Time Inc, Condé Nast Publications, The New York Times Company, Gannett Company, Guardian Media Group, and Prometheus Global Media/Nielsen Media Research when their publications/journals cited are already extremely well-known in their own right (Time, Vogue, New York Times, Guardian, USA Today, Billboard). Then there is the redundancy of having them for the eponymous publications (e.g."|work=Time...|publisher=Time Inc", "|work=MTV...|publisher=MTV Networks", "|work=The Guardian...|publisher=Guardian Media Group"). Also, there is the issue of consistency... For journals such as Billboard, we variously have as publisher 'Prometheus Global Media', 'Nielsen Media Research', 'Nielsen Business Media', 'Nielsen Business Media, Inc.' for the same article. So voilà my rationale for cleanly removing some of the publishers from citation templates!

    Anyways, I am undoing the additions I made in the last few days to the removals list of publishers pending further discussion. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    • I think you've got a point on some of them, but I think the publisher of most news sources is valuable information if only to distinguish between Murdoch papers and the tiny minority of the market he doesn't own (yet). I could have sworn a previous version of WP:CITE or a related document encouraged the addition of publishers, but I notice the current version encourages the use of locations, which I've found to be generally discouraged at most review processes.

      One thing I would mention is that replacing the publisher with a vague location (I think you replaced |publisher=Telegraph News and Media with |location=UK on one of "my" articles) is not especially helpful. In "my" articles, it breaks consistency, because I don't use the location field, and if I did, I'd give the city of publication rather than the country. I don't know how easy it is to take account of the article's overall style (which can be quite idiosyncratic) and edit with a script, but it might be a good idea to if you can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

      • Thanks. Some of the points you raised have already been discussed with Nikkimaria, among others. In addition, I have now created a page which deals with the philosophy, rational and objectives of my script edits. I would welcome further discussion on these points. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Since it popped up on my watchlist, why remove "Time Inc" and "The New York Times Company", but leave "BBC" and other obvious publishers in the publisher field? Ideally (to me at least), all web sources would either use the publisher field or not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
          • You have a point. That article seems to have a higher proportion of publishers than normal. And I haven't yet built up a repertoire of publishers. So it has to be done manually. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Greenhaw[edit]

Thanks but no thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • WTF? Are you aware that the date formats ought to be consistent? See WP:MOSNUM. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Eh, "WTF"? Manners, please. Yes, I am. It's a guideline, and one cannot grossly violate a guideline. It has a really interesting second paragraph, which I suggest you read. When you're done with that, you can revert yourself (because you're edit warring now--I am the original creator, I use a valid format, and I obviously don't want your changes) and apologize. Have a great day! Drmies (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Er... MOSNUM encourages format consistency as the prime objective. the second paragraph says "Edit warring over optional styles (such as 14 February and February 14) is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." As the subject is American, the first dates are mdy, and few others have touched "your article", I surmised that mdy was the format to be retained given by the first major contributor. If you would prefer it to be in dmy, I can do that too. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I know the subject is American, thanks. I also know that dd-mm-yyyy is acceptable in America (I live in it, and I have a copy of the MLA Stylebook on my desk). What I see now is that one intermediate editor changed the death date, and a birthday found later was added in that same format. All other dates are in the format. So you "kept" two dates and changed all the others. Besides, I don't appreciate Time (magazine) being unlinked and capitalized (no argument was given in the edit summary), and I don't understand why you'd unlink the first mention of Alabama. What I'd like is for you to take back the "WTF" and the "grotesque violation". Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
          • I apologise for having been taken aback by your reaction. I wasn't aware that another editor had gone in and added/changed dates to mdy. I just wanted for the article to look purdy for the DYK. The reason I menton the subject was American is that by our convention, in excess of 90% of articles on US subjects employ mdy dates; it is extremely rare to see them used outside of US military-related articles. So I jumped to the wrong conclusion...

            As to why I unlinked Alabama, the state of Alabama is several degrees of separation from our subject. As our guideline on linking discourages use of successive links not separated by 'normal' text, I therefore removed the more remote to highlight Sheffield, which is of much greater immediate relevance to Greenshaw. I hope this addresses your concerns. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

            • Thanks for explaining. Here's where I'm coming from: a. I like dates dd-mm-yyyy, and not just because I'm European. The MLA actually favors the format since it eliminates a comma, and the written month easily separates the two numbers. b. at some point something changed about the citation templates; I can't remember exactly what the difference was, but if I remember correctly it allowed for/favored that format, and I liked that. In existing articles, I try to stick with convention (whatever it is), of course. As far as Alabama is concerned, the lead needs a bit of expansion--Greenham is seen as one of the essential Alabamian writers, and I should probably tweak it somewhere, with a reference, to bring that out. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
              • I tend to agree about dmy – the economy of commas is certainly an attraction. Yes, do elaborate on his stature within Alabama writing. That fact certainly seems important enough for it to exist outside a mere reference to the state where he was born. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I had similar questions about Povey Brothers Studio, except I was only formatting the accessdate field "incorrectly" as yyyy-mm-dd. Of course American subjects should have American style dates, but at some point back when dates were automatically linked in citation tls, the yyyy-mm-dd format was the one that was supposed to be used in that field, IIRC. I've always thought it looked bad, so I'll be glad to dispense with it, though it is faster to type it my way. Not sure I agree about the unlinking of states, but I see the logic in the successive links thing. Valfontis (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • To a large number of people, the ISO-8601 dates are a format more machine- than human-friendly; and to some, they are a relic from date autoformatting. That format also has its supporters. I didn't realise you had deliberately put them like that. I just think a mix of date formats in the refs section looks odd, and I flip them into a unified format more often than not. I do not usually treat references sections where they are all uniformly yyyy-mm-dd. Don't worry if you find it easier to type dates that way but want them in another. Let me know any articles you want processed, and I can flip them in just a few seconds. Or you can use my script to do it yourself. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It does look odd so I'm glad to know I can stop doing it. Thanks for the info--I've been deliberately consistently inconsistent with American style in text body and date of the references, and ISO in accessdate field in the articles I write, and just go with the prevailing style in articles I edit. I've only written a few hundred articles that way, but I'll take the extra three seconds to type the date out correctly now. I'll take a look at that script! Valfontis (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


I've fixed the Noel F. Parrish article at DYK. BarkingMoon (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to approve this or is there some other issue? Also, I don't understand the bot city state changes, towit changing [[Galveston, Texas]] to [[Gavleston, Texas|Galveston]], Texas . That's putting in the state twice. Maybe if it also linked the state separately it'd make sense but as is it seems convoluted and unnecessary to me. What's the rationale behind this? BarkingMoon (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


I found your comment on Jimbo's talk page insightful, but you seem to be assuming that the Latin-based Vietnamese alphabet is just a romanisation. In fact, during the 20th century it has completely replaced the earlier Chinese-based Chữ Nôm script. Maybe I misled you with my comment in which I said that Đặng Hữu Phúc is already the romanisation. Hans Adler 07:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Hans. I don't profess to know Vietnamese. Yes, I have always found Vietnamese script particularly intimidating, and I thought Jimbo was employing deliberate hyperbole when quoting that as an example. Thanks to your link, I find confirmation that written language is atypical of diacritic usage in almost all other languages – that some of them are used for tone and some are for pronunciation – so it doesn't fall into the scope of the point I was trying to make. I have no interest in seeing any form of representation of tonality by diacritics, as in pinyin – that is another can of worms that could lead us to argue for use of Wade–Giles or jyutping. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It was actually me who introduced that name on Jimbo's talk page as an example of where we may really be overdoing it. I am not saying we are. I am perfectly happy with seeing Vietnamese letters and just ignoring everything I don't understand, and pinyin is even familiar to me as it is how I learned the little Chinese I know. (I was amazed how well thought-through it is, so that to the maximum extent possible it fits into the range of how European languages are represented by Latin letters.) But I can see that only few English sources such as the high end of academic literature use diacritics in Vietnamese names, so I am well prepared to concede that we shouldn't do it. Hans Adler 08:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, you couldn't have done better to provoke a Patellar reflex! As I said, I believe single-purpose use of diacritics may still be acceptable for 'natively titled' Wikipedia articles, albeit with some resistance. My personal feeling is that it's too difficult now to argue for a two-layered system like Vietnamese, or with Chinese transliterations with overlaid diacritics. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the barnstar! Glad you like the dress articles! Yeah LOL the steel spike of Rosa Klebbs shoes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Football in Brazil vs Brazil[edit]

Hi there CONFUCIUS, VASCO from Portugal here,

please have a look at this WP:FOOTY discussion (see here, you'll see that the logic i put forth there is quite correct. Please drop a line there if you like.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC on a subpage structure for the Manual of Style[edit]

Hi Ohconfucius.

As someone who contributed to discussion when the issue was raised a little while ago, you may like to have your say in the current RFC on subpages, at WT:MOS.

NoeticaTea? 05:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


moved to User talk:Ohconfucius/squigglies

Hello Ohconfucius. I responded to your comment here. We should have to find a compromise/way out of this. The discussion should head towards a descriptive and clear definition of using diacritical marks on Wikipedia. Instead of it, it is more and more fragmented and disorganized. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Good news is that Jimbo no longer seems to be totally opposed to the use of diacritics in names. I'm trying to better understand it - it may help... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Noted. His initial reaction was a bit hasty, in my opinion. Think about the weak points of a possible new proposal. Is it necessary to define more precisely the languages that are acceptable? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
well, I believe we should restrict ourselves for now to the 'more familiar' European languages. There are Vietnamese script and Romanji, both of which, after 400 years, could be considered 'native'. I believe including these could have complications, so would prefer to leave them out. I consider both V and J to be Sinitic languages, where diacritics are used to indicate pronunciation and tone. I would add that, polyglot that I am, I still find the Vietnamese alphabet to be alien extremely and intimidating, and I'm sure many others also find them on the par with Cyrillic or Greek alphabets. So these languages and their attributes are too remote from the principles of English Wikipedia, and my inclination would be to not deal with these at the present time. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The Style Manual of the National Geographic lists the languages and commonly used diacritical marks. It says basically the same as you about the Vietnamese, and I agree too. I think it could be a good inspiration, but I miss some languages there, such as Romanian and Slovene. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
As one of the guardians of the English language, it's no surprise that the BBC omit accents from names such as Aimé Jacquet and Arsène Wenger. The NG certainly counts as an authoritative and reliable source in this connection; and they follow Websters. The journal's international outlook and desire to be accurate and informative for this audience marks NG out as an example to follow. Ditch the common news sources. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. What I'm trying to do now is completing the NG's list of languages (containing diacritics) that could be acceptable for the English Wikipedia. I miss Romanian, Slovene, Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian. Another thing: The possible proposal should emphasize the need of verifiability. The fact that diacritics is a part of someone's name must be verifiable by reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I miss Romanian, Slovene, Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian What you have is already a very good list. Getting these last few would be putting the icing on. Perhaps will need to enlist opinions of natives of these languages. The fact that diacritics is a part of someone's name must be verifiable by reliable sources. Of course. This should be easy if we avail ourselves of a native language citation about the subject. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that many natives of these languages already participate in the discussion and I can notify the national notice boards. As far as I know, citing reliable non-English sources is an allowed and accepted practice on en-wiki. I wrote articles backed up solely by reliable Czech sources. I think there could be a problem with commonly accepted anglicized names, but I don't know how to mention it in the proposal. Do you have any advice? ... I apologize for bothering you, Ohconfucius, but you seem to be a person capable of very clear and precise phrasing, so that's why I came here for help. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the great compliment! I'm glad to be of assistance. As to the proposed wording, perhaps we could say something like:

Wikipedia should respect the original form of proper nouns originating in European languages with a Latin script having diacritics, plus Turkish. Native forms of such words with diacritics should be stated in the body of the article alongside common renderings without diacritics (where used in English language sources), and must be adequately cited. Loan words should only carry their original diacritics when the latter are commonly used within English language sources.

--Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
If I could throw my two cents in here, I think the proposed wording is spot on and just what Wikipedia needs- a concise, clear parameter to follow. Thank you, Ohconfucius! Demokratickid (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help, it is a good proposal. I think we should focus more on defining of using diacritics in the article titles‎ than in the body of the article. We can also omit the words "European" and "Turkish", as I plan to add the list of languages as a footnote or a supplement. ... It may be impossible to come to an overall consensus for this issue, but I'm conviced we should at least try it. Thanks again. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It may be worth mentioning because some would be concerned at the total lack of transliteration without the diacritics in any given article, as in the Đặng Hữu Phúc. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, of course. I have no objection. What about mentioning the title in the proposal? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hows about:

The use of diacritics in proper nouns from languages with a roman script[1] should be respected. Native forms of such words should be used in article titles as appropriate. Common renderings without diacritics (where used in English-language sources) should appear at least once in the body of the article. For example, the article on Jiří Novák should be at Jiří Novák, and not Jiri Novak; 'Jiri Novak' should also appear in the body of the article if that rendering can be cited to Western reliable sources. Both native and non-diacritic renderings must be adequately cited. A loan word should carry its original diacritics only when they are commonly used in English-language sources.

I still think it's marginally better (simpler) to apply the description 'European' plus 'Turkish' – we have them all under that classification, after all. Frankly I don't see the advantage of having them all listed separately in a footnote. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Some unsorted related thoughts since I was asked to comment:

  • Since we already have such a wide discussion at the moment, I think it's best to create a concrete proposal on a separate page and start a big RfC, advertised on WP:CENT. But we should first prepare it in user space so that we can work constructively on it without having to defend it against people who want to immediately tag it as a failed proposal, or rewrite it to say the opposite. See WP:Use diacritics.
  • Listing the languages in question is a good idea, although summarising the list as far as possible may make it clear, e.g., that we don't want to exclude Catalan just because it's not listed alongside Spanish and French, or in the next iteration that we don't want to exclude Provençal (the historical language or the local dialect) just because it's not listed alongside Spanish, French and Catalan. Obviously these languages have all very similar treatment of diacritics, so should be treated the same way.
  • I think we should also explain some of the basics behind use of diacritics because many native English speakers just don't get them. (Ideally we should have reliable sources for these statements.)
    • For some modified letters there are rules for replacing them by more easily available letters, when necessary. In some cases these rules are more complicated than just using the unadorned base letter.
    • Such replacements are generally considered OK where they are necessary for technical reasons. They are generally not considered OK where the technical problems do not apply and the focus is on a proper name itself. (This applies both in the original languages and in English.)
    • In general, how to replace a letter correctly depends on the language as well as the letter. E.g. ö becomes oe in German words, but o in Swedish words. If a Swedish resident has a German name we are in trouble.
  • I think we should cover both titles and article text, while we are at it.
  • While the disputes are currently about names from languages using a Latin script, names from non-Latin scripts create similar problems, especially when all acceptable Romanisation systems use diacritics.
  • Before thinking of an RfC, we should get statistics about current usage: Percentage of articles that use/omit diacritics in various languages, and outcomes of requested moves for such articles.
  • Perhaps we should also address the following explicitly: Some Wikipedia editors go to random (from their point of view) articles on extremely technical topics or places/persons of almost exclusively local interest. Then they complain that they can't understand those articles, or that the names look unfamiliar due to diacritics. This is often unreasonable. Whether an article is comprehensible, and whether the use of diacritics is familiar or not, must be decided with reference to the expected average reader, not the expected average Wikipedia editor who tries to control all of Wikipedia's content. Readers interested in a specific location or person are much more likely to have at least rudimentary familiarity with the relevant language and its writing system. Hans Adler 09:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Amina Bokhary controversy[edit]

I nominated this article for Good Article status. I think it's up to standard, so why not. Deryck C. 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks Deryck. I'll give it a once-over in the morning. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ohconfucius. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 00:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

+ Publications using diacritics[edit]

I don't know if this is general enough, but just wanted to note that the journals of the American Economic Association [6] also use diacritics. I've only got a couple of the AEJ:... ones handy so I can readily verify those. I can check Journal of Economic Perspectives, Journal of Economic Literature and American Economic Review tomorrow. So might wanna add those to the list.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why newspapers often don't use diacritics ...[edit]

... becomes clear when you see the following in the AP Stylebook (under "Non-transmitting symbols"):

The following are symbols that should not be used in standard AP wire transmissions.
Some of the symbols can be sent and received by some computers but are not generally used because they are not available throughout the newspaper industry or may act as control characters to make a computer perform a function rather than print a character.
accent marks
Do not use them; they cause garbled copy in some newspaper computers.
asterisk *
Rarely translates and in many cases cannot be sent by AP computers or received by newspaper computers.
at sign @
Does not exist. In computer addresses, use (at). Example: president(at)
percent %
Rarely translates and in many cases cannot be sent by AP computers or received by newspaper computers.
pound sign £ or #
Frequently a control character. Rarely translates and in many cases cannot be sent by AP computers or received by newspaper computers.
Symbols and combinations of characters and symbols used by languages other than English generally can be transmitted or received only by AP and newspaper computers programmed for those languages. Leave the symbols off or use generally accepted equivalents. For example, German umlauts are represented using two regular letters when they are needed: In “Goethe,” the “oe” is the “o” with an umlaut.

This is from the 2002 edition! Given these extreme, anachronistic restrictions and the time restrictions under which they operate, it is no wonder that newspapers have trouble restoring foreign names to the proper spelling. Obviously we don't have this problem. Hans Adler 11:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Trial of Geert Wilders[edit]

Hello, this current ITN item needs actually to go to Dutch date formatting (Day Month, Year). Could your script do this easily? --hydrox (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


I find your lack of assumption of good faith and acuusations of being a purist and wanting to get rid of diacritics insulting. Please refrain from personal attacks in the future, and assume good faith. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Irène Bordoni[edit]

Your edits to this article introduced a $2 character which I'm removing. Hohenloh + 09:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your notification. I see what happened. The script error has since been fixed. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Trying to improve this article, and also Reverend Charisma article is messed up.Please help on the Notability issues.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherGenericUser (talkcontribs) 07:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rewolucyjni Mściciele[edit]

I clarified two issues, but the third seems clear to me. I commented on it at the article's talk page, where I'd invite you to reply. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


FYI: WP:ANI#User:Ohconfucius/script altering accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD in violation of WP:DATERET. Amalthea 21:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Ohconfucius/script: --JimWae (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The MOS permits accessdates in the form of YYYY-MM-DD (Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD). Your script ignores this. You should not be running scripts that change date formats merely because they are your personal preference. Please revert such changes you made to the Vancouver article. Btw: All 96 were in YYYY-MM-DD format. Changing such violates WP:DATERET. Also please revert the Manhattan article, and Toronto, and New York City. --JimWae (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have brought this up at --JimWae (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

en dashes in catalogue numbers?[edit]

Regarding parts of your edit at Peter and the Wolf: since when are en dashes used in catalogue numbers of recordings? I don't mind it, but I'm not aware that this usage is recommended, so I'm asking for my education and future editing. I read at Dash that a figure dash should be used in these cases, but that glyph is mostly unavailable and a minus should be used instead (there's also a confusing afterthought which suggest substituting the figure dash with the en dash). However, I can't find anything relating to catalogue numbers at the more relevant MOS:DASH. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Ah, I didn't notice. It must be a false positive in the dashes script. I will go back and fix it, and take more care with it in future. Thanks, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

PRC editors?[edit]

I was rather alarmed at the insinuation that pro "PRC" editors were editing the Boxer Rebellion article over here- Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Statement_by_Ohconfucius- do you have any proof that I added PRC/CCP sources or accounts to the article? I explicitly, and repeatedly noted that all my sources were western, not CCP, and I criticized the use of PRC sources on Qing dynasty related articles - "do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources. They deliberately malign Cixi and Qing as corrupt, to further their communist ideology by making it look good"

Did you actually look at the sourcing on the article? the only Chinese sources of any origin- PRC/non PRC being introduced, were sources used by Arilang1234. Not me, nor any other editor used a "PRC account" in the article.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Could you kindly point out the sentence/phrase(s) you objected to? I don't see in what way I insinuated that PRC editors had been editing the article. I mentioned your name in context of the previous dispute you had with Arilang; I mentioned inherent bias in PRC sources, but I certainly didn't say you added anything you should not have, and would apologise in advance if I had. Certainly none was implied. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I had a similarly alarming impression when I read your reply. Your overall tone implied that the Boxer Rebellion issue was just a skirmish, "as with all things PRC", in a war between pro-PRC and liberal editors, a conspiratorial line of reasoning explicitly rejected by all of the participants in the dispute except Arilang1234 (and implicitly rejected by Arilang1234 as I have shown in my reply to your comment). This sentence: "There exists within academics and researchers a strong nationalist and revisionist component; 'unpatriotic' views are self-censored, marginalised, vilified and even censored post-publication." is particularly inflammatory, because it suggests that one side of the Boxer dispute represents PRC "nationalists" and "revisionists" who "censor", "marginalise", and "vilify" editors they perceive as having "unpatriotic views". These allegations may have not been intentional, but editors who have been accused by Arilang1234 of being PRC agents ("50 cent party") have not unreasonably said they felt threatened by his accusations, so extra sensitivity is needed around this area. What you say about PRC sources may be true in general, but it's not really relevant to this particular dispute. Readers of the noticeboard who are not familiar with the Boxers may come away from reading your comment thinking that the crux of the issue was about whether to include PRC government sources or not, when it was emphatically not about that. Quigley (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The post-Arilang cleanup? Help needed picking up the pieces[edit]

Thank you for your thoughts on Arilang on the DRN. Moving forward, we have a lot of work to do excising the POV pushing edits and, even more labor intensive, merging or AfDing the slew of POV forks he has left behind (over 10 I think!) Any assistance in this area much appreciated. I would ask on WikiProject China, but it seems fairly moribund the last 6 months. NickDupree (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

  • You're right, WP:CHINA is a hive of inactivity. He's left a huge mess across WP. And unfortunately, there's still a backlog of Arilang's copyright violation from last year. I think we need to create a project by first identifying the scope of his activities. The starting point ought to be undoing most of his edits and page creations. I would try my hand at cleaning up, by going through his contributions history and reverting. Let me know if there's anything more specific you would like me to examine. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation[edit]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting.

This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated.

We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words".

>>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:19, 3 July 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.