User talk:Ohconfucius/archive18

DEFENDER OF HONG KONG

12:40 AM, Friday November 8, 2024

This user is a native of Hong Kong.

This user is a citizen of the United Kingdom.

This user lives in France.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 10 months and 8 days.

... Overlinking Make wikilinks only where they are relevant and helpful in the context. Links can be distracting and may slow the reader down. Redundant links (like "the tallest people on Earth") clutter the page. High-value links will stand out more clearly in the absence of low-value links. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

The Penguin Cabal

User:Ohconfucius/Globes

Talk page archives and miscellaneous Exchanges specific to my Engvar script are also archived at User talk:Ohconfucius/EngvarB.

Falun Gong articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

me again

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox musical artist fields

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

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

Carlos Slim

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False positive

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

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

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

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

WLKW edit

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

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

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

W & J Galloway & Sons vs commons boxes

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

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

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

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

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

Wikinews link for Manila hostage crisis

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

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

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

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

Interesting debate

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

Accessdates

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC/U on Tenmei

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

Re: Chater collection (Orange)

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

Accessdate format

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mills and Paul

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

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

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

6521 project

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

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

Bot date conversion

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

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

GOCE / Mid-drive newsletter

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

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

European Rotaract Information Centre

Hi,

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

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

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

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

Bot/AWB mistake

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

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

a bug for you ;)

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

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

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

  I saw; no problemo. Damned, Gold Hatthis user is a sock puppet^{off-the-reservation
  sockpuppet}06:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• None of those second-hand 'news reports' adds anything that isn't already covered by the given article or sister articles. The sources cited in the article are more extensive and up to date than those in WN. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)