User talk:Ohconfucius/archive22

Removing underlines

Can I suggest that before you do a mass removal of underlining, you might actually read the text first? At Binomial nomenclature, your edits changed the sensible "When handwritten, each part of a binomial name should be underlined; for example, Homo sapiens" into the senseless "When handwritten, each part of a binomial name should be underlined; for example, Homo sapiens". Every one of the underlines you removed was there for a specific reason. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I apologise. I did see them and was going to reinstate them. However, I somehow got sidetracked. Anyway, thanks for the reminder – I'll rewrite the script code. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Olympic Stadium (Grenoble)

Hi Ohconfucius, Can you change Stade Lesdiguières in Olympic Stadium (Grenoble) in infobox of 1968 Winter Olympics. I can't.

Grenix (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Done. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

1879–80 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season

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.

---

Your changes look awful. If your removing the &ndash why cant we put a space in the scores to make it look like a score line. Rather than someone forcing the dash into one letter. If you look at the 13-1 score it just dosent look right at all. I would also like an answer why we use &ndash for titles of season articles if you say we shouldn't be using them. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Your changes look awful" I defy you to tell the difference between the appearances on the split-screen screen capture below just by looking at the dashes. One is the "original", one is after my edit. (Hint: you can't, but you can tell by which ones have the aligned dates :-0 Haha! ) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

.

• Your really starting to annoy me because you never answer a question and I'm starting to think its because you don't actually no why is it used in titles if it cant be used and why a you won't put the space in. All along you have been extremely unhelpful and making accusations such as your completely unfounded suggestion that my edit summary was false. When you removed the &ndash and i reverted saying it should be used. Now i apologise re this one as i thought you had removed them like you did here [1]. The space was there on my edit but when you changed you eliminated the space. As you are failing to explain yourself I'm well in my right to revert again until you explain. A. why it actually exists if it shouldn't be used. B. why its used in the title of the article but i don't see you moving that and C whats wrong with using it and D. Why a space cant be put in because thats what you are removing when a space exists on the page. This could of been sorted a long time ago if you and tony hadn't decided to accuse me of something i didn't do and explain why you were doing it. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• oh and why use HaHa we aren't 6. All you have to do is answer the questions how do you expect people to know why you are doing this when you won't answer their questions. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I already told you I don't understand your question; I thought you were going to consult 'the project'... As to understanding the circumstances when the '–' (ndash) ought to be used instead of the '-' (hyphen) and whether there ought to be adjacent spaces or not, you could do a lot worse than to consult WP:MOSDASH. I would re-emphasise that I never ever removed any ndashes from the articles you have been referring to. I merely replaced some ndashes that were in html notation (i.e. "–") with some ndashes that were a keystroke (i.e. "–"). I really have no idea what you are on about and why you are complaining so loudly, because it all looks the same. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• I don't want to misunderstand, so would appreciate proper spelling and punctuation. I would kindly ask you to stop "texting", and writing as if the space character was the only punctuation. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• The dates don't appear to be aligned in one and not the other. You've changed from June 24, 2011 to 24 June 2011 which is fine but i wouldn't say thats an alignment. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• That's what I meant by "alignment". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

More uniform maybe but i wouldn't say alignment. The odd thing is thats how prove it styles it. Despite being against mos on dates.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:DASH and it talks about using ndash. Two forms of dash are used on Wikipedia: en dash (–) and em dash (—). Type them in as (&ndash) (–) and (&mdash) (—). I cannot see where it says you shouldn't use the code rather than not. It also explains that it should be used in titles. Unless you can show me where it says you shouldn't use the code rather than a keystroke i don't see the problem. It also says spaces can be used with ndash so there was no need for the spaces to be removed. I also note that its fairly obvious that my edit summary reffered to the use of ndash not your keystroke version. Your continued saying i don't use punctuation isn't my problem i can read it as most people can. If i texted you there would be no full stops and no capitals and i would use text speak like this AWGTHTGTTA. What a stupid thing to use against anyone this is 2012 and the world has adapted and text speak when talking to other people is common. I could of written it in text speak but wouldnt be productive.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You could look at it the other way and say there's no prohibition to using the non-html form, but you continue to insist that I'm wrong. The problem is that "–" is gobbledegook and puts novices off, but both forms render exactly the same on-screen. Insertion of the non-html form is encouraged by the provision inside the Insert box below the edit window. Anyway, I think it would be fruitless for me to talk to you because we're obviously not getting through to each other. it takes me three times as long to parse what you are saying compared to the average person I converse with. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ive checked it out and Wikipedia:DASH does not In anyway back your claims it clearly tells you how to use the code. Therefore please don't hide behind it when making your reversions its wrong. There is following policy and using it to your means. You constantly told me to read the policy i have it does not back you up. And neither have my other checks. There is no problem using it. I will revert you when you try to hide between a non existent rule. And saying it puts novices of is nonsense. Stop making veiled attacks such as this: it takes me three times as long to parse what you are saying compared to the average person I converse with. Thats something a three year old would do or maybe someone who isn't with this generation. Remember wiki is for everyone not just people similar to yourself. You talk about putting novices off from experience making an argument that your own link does not back you up on will put of any new user as will making attacks. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed WP:MOSDASH tells you how to use the code "–": "–" isn't very accessible on the average keyboard. I will no doubt come across your articles again. By reverting me, you are undoing a bunch of useful changes for something that isn't even cosmetic. I would advise you not to resist improvements to the page. If you really must, please don't do a straight revert. Doing a search and replace of the "–" with "–" will be clean and avoid me coming to fix the –es that you would prefer keeping. As I gnome a lot, I suggest that you render all your date formats, uniform because they are my primary concern and interest. It lowers the likelihood that I will come by and edit one of 'yours', thereby disturbing your precious html-–. I would say that it does not preclude someone else coming by and replacing "–" with "–" in your articles in future. I would also say that doing mass changes that have no effect on the rendered page (inconsequential edits) for the sake of personal preference is frowned upon and may be considered disruptive editing. Happy editing, Jock. If I were you, I'd work on my punctuation to complement my knowledge of endashes. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The same could be seen for changing the code when there is no specific need or policy that indicates the change needs to be made. In my view changing when you are aware the policy allows could be seen as disruptive as well. We are going to have to agree to disagree. You need to stop with your attacks against me jock and going on about my grammar is wrong. This is a talk page not an article and even if it was you have no right to continue these digs when you are doing it to wind me up rather than any actual gain. There are two thing I will compromise on. If you don't quote the policy when making the change and two you stop your digs which is what they are. Then I will not revert the whole edit and will try and save the good parts. Of course you could just not change on football season articles when there is no pressing need to do so. And just so you are aware the gadget Prove It formats the dates like that. I usually change to the format you have but recently I have noticed other editors changing back to the format that you are saying is wrong. That will create a lot of wrong date formats. Edinburgh Wanderer 09:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is over - 3 including me have told you you are wrong. Now please take your bad faith accusations and leave. Thank you and goodbye! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:51, 13 March 2012 (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.

Republic of China article

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.224 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can has Bermuda fish chowder?

Hi Ohconfucius! Dunno why (especially since but Bermuda is technically British) but I wrote it using AmE spellings. Just between you and me, I did it for the lulz (and to improve the Encyclopedia, of course). Sunderland68 (talk · contribs · logs) added it to Chowder, which for some inexplicable was on my watchlist, and instead of just "rem Bermuda Fish Chowder, no article for unref'd assertion"-ing, had a look into it... and so on. And, as my off-wiki correspondents about this article say, "have a bermudaful day, Ohconfucius."--Shirt58 (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

278th Armored Cavalry Regiment (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brest

33rd G8 summit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gleneagles

Antony Flew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reading

Dunblane school massacre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Forest

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Will you please not remove year-in-poetry links to pages. I thought we'd been through this.

This does a lot of harm. See also 2009 in poetry#Deaths Similar links are on bibliography sections for articles on poets, and the links are identified at the top of each "[year] in poetry" page and at the top of all bibliography lists that link to those pages (for instance, W. B. Yeats bibliography and W. S. Merwin#Works. Please revert. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Carnival edit

Hi Ohconfucius. I don't know if you're using a script but if so you may want to double check it; this edit did a number of odd things such as turn [[Rio de Janeiro]] into [[[[Rio Carnival||Carnival in Rio de Janeiro]] and change the "use dmy" date unnecessarily. 28bytes (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I deliberately and manually changed [[Rio de Janeiro]] to [[[[Rio Carnival||Carnival in Rio de Janeiro]], believing it to be more appropriate linking, but I failed to clean up on the number of square brackets. As to the dates, it seemed that the majority dates were dmy, which is the format I adopted for all the other dates in the article, according to Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Full_date_formatting. I trust this is a satisfactory response to your query. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah it was the extra brackets and pipe that made me think it was a script bug, but it's all sorted now. Thanks for the quick response. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, and regarding the mdy... I was just puzzled why you changed {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2011}} to {{Use dmy dates|date=March 2012}}. 28bytes (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, as it's a maintenance tag, the date is updated to reflect the last pass of the script, so that one day, systematic maintenance can be programmed for the "oldest" articles first. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification! 28bytes (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

I have a question regarding this edit, why do you change most of the parameter work in {{cite web}} template to publisher? Most of the references already have publisher specified and your edit creates two publisher in one {{cite web}} template. — MT (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• |work= italicises, whilst |publisher= does not. Websites and sources like ESPN and NBA ought not to be italicised according to WP:ITALIC. It was indeed a mistake that my script left duplicates of |publisher=, they could/should have been removed as redundant. I trust that answers your question. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, thanks for the quick response, really appreciated. However, I've done a quick read on WP:ITALIC but it mentions: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post)." I believe ESPN.com and NBA.com is a news site with original content (although some of their contents came from Associated Press), any reason why it should be treated different than Salon.com or The Huffington Post? Anyway, to clarify, I shouldn't use work=NBA, but which one should I use: publisher=NBA, publisher=NBA.com, publisher=NBA Media Ventures, LLC or publisher=Turner Sports Interactive, Inc? Sorry if I have a lot of question, but I'm really curious and I have been using work=ESPN.com|publisher=ESPN Internet Ventures and work=NBA.com|publisher=Turner Sports Interactive, Inc in hundreds of citation templates and I don't want to keep doing the wrong thing. — MT (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think the guidelines are very clear at present. I tried asking at WT:ITALIC, but there has been no response beyond what is written in the guidance because many of us are still struggling with the definitions. That is the reason why I usually prefer to turn new media sources into traditional media sources and then I can unambiguously use the |work= (eg "|publisher=Times Online" or "|work=Times Online" becomes "|work=The Times". The ".com" was stripped off nba.com because up until just now, I wasn't aware that nba.com wasn't part of the National Basketball Association but part of Ted Turner's empire. BTW, nba.com redirects to the NBA, so maybe it needs sorting, or I may be doing it wrong. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm not sure whether NBA.com/NBA Media Ventures is under Turner's company directly or through NBA. Anyway, thanks for pointing me to WT:ITALIC, I never knew that there have been several discussions regarding italics for websites though it seems that no conclusion has been reached. I'll have a look on those discussions. Thanks for your help on this. And also thanks for the quick fix. Cheers! — MT (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Just a friendly reminder, your edit resulted in multiple |publisher= again. — MT (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. When you recently edited Canada national cricket team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Date format script issue

Hi Ohconfucius! When I used your date format script on Bruce Springsteen in this edit, it make lots of great changes, but also changed the link to the song "4th of July, Asbury Park (Sandy)" to "July 4, Asbury Park (Sandy)". Could you please tweak the script so it does not change dates that are part of a wikilink? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. I've been pondering whether I should blanket protect the string '4th of July'... I've tweaked the script, and I've run it on the [fixed] article, and it seems to leave the string alone. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! GoingBatty (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

reply:Chief executive election

Yes the electors in the social welfare sector are considered to be pan-democratic. In fact, I guess some of the Agriculture and fisheries sector electors belong to the DAB or the FTU. I didn't want the table to sum up the expected number of votes each candidate will get, but to show the preferences of the political powers. I have added a note to prevent double counting.Jabo-er (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

User script listings cleanup project

I'm leaving this message for all recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion ^(talk) 00:19, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

DMY date format

Hi, I noticed that you recently did a cleanup on 1948 Tinker Air Force Base tornadoes (which I greatly appreciate) but changed all the dates to DMY format. Since this is an American article, this date format seems inappropriate, and I have changed it back. Please be careful when editing USA event articles in the future. Thank you! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, RoB. US military articles are sometimes hard on this count. For example, almost all of the many US battleship articles use dmy, because the US military uses dmy. I tend not to change what I find in these articles, although if there's already inconsistency, a decision has to be made (then I look at the sibling articles). Tony (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just happened to come across a hard decision ... Please let me know what you think. Tony (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on military articles as I am not really acquainted with their standard practices... I know that strictly scientific articles I am familiar with tend to have DMY format as well, but as Wikipedia is far from a scientific environment I am in favor of using the popular format in the articles I edit (mainly on weather and related phenomena). In the same way I am in favor of listing imperial units first in American articles, even though as a scientist I greatly prefer scientific notation. Anyway, I hope you're happy with my justification, let me know if you have any questions. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if there are any articles whose dates you specifically want aligned, or put into dmy or mdy format. Regards, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Date changes

Can you please be just a tad more careful about changing dates in articles? It's been causing problems in meteorology articles. [2] is one instance I've heard of (it broke the image in the infobox), and I recall hearing some WP:TROP editors mention that it had caused issues in some of their articles, although I don't know specifics on that (you may want to ask on WT:TROP). Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. I've modified the script, tested it. So that particular issue should not arise again. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#&ndash

Hello there, I started a recent discussion regarding your edits to season pages at WP:Footy. I acknowledge your changes to infoboxes etc. are correct but my concern is the match results section &ndash vs. keystroke. Just thought it would be polite to inform you. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

20th Century-Fox Records

Your edit to the 20th Century-Fox Records article was reverted because in this article "20th Century" is the proper name of the record label so "century" is capitalized. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens for bibleref's

In your 13:54 26 February 2012 edit to Zechariah (priest) hyphens in bibleref template verse ranges were changed to endash's, which are outside the range of acceptable characters for URL's. Although the link still works by direct clicking, it does not work by dragging and dropping the link into another open browser window. Either leave the hyphens alone, or switch from the bibleref template to the bibleref2 template which allows alternate text to be displayed as the link text. That would preserve the hyphen in the link itself, but the displayed text can have an endash. Example:

• old: {{bibleref|Luke|1:67-79|KJV}}
• new: {{bibleref2|Luke|1:67-79|KJV|Luke 1:67–79}}

I have corrected the Zechariah page. If you have changed any other pages, they would need to be modified.
Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Additional thought. I noticed in some of your messages above where you mentioned changing html – to keystroke – characters. On my page display, which uses "Arial" font at 10 points, the hyphen appears 3 pixels wide and the endash 7 pixels. However, in the edit window, the display is 10pt "Courier New", a fixed-width font, and both hyphen and endash appear as 6 pixels wide – there is no visual difference. To avoid ambiguity, I think it best to use the html – so it is obvious it is not a hyphen. Just a thought. Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  17:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square Self-Immolation Incident

I noticed you've radically edited this page over the last several hours. I understand that you're attempting to return it to the version you worked on several years ago. Note that the changes that were made since then were discussed at great length, with several different editors involved, and that there were sound reasons for these changes. SilkTork, who was involved in overseeing that discussion and corresponding changes, also found them to be reasonable and the process agreeable.

I will also point out that the direction of your edits introduces (or rather, reintroduces) serious problems of bias. You have removed from the introduction any allusion to the inconsistencies in the narrative, for instance, or to the escalation in state-sanctioned torture that resulted from the event. In the 'background' section, you introduced several problematic instances of original synthesis. Original synthesis and misrepresentation of sources also occurred elsewhere on the page with your edits. I am going to resolve some of these issues in light of previous talk page discussions.

I seem to remember that at an arbitrartion enforcement last fall, you and Colipon essentially told the presiding admin that they should ban all the pro- and anti- Falungong editors as a means of ending protracted edit wars. But you both then said that it was unnecessary to ban you, as you would voluntarily remove yourselves from these pages. If you don't intend honor your word, you should at least attempt to discuss changes before making them, or read previous discussions to understand why revisions were made.—Zujine|talk 14:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for reminder about Arbcom, I wholly refute your allegations of bias. As I am sure you know, I have it firmly on the record that it was for my own sanity that I voluntarily stopped editing FLG articles. I am not subject to any ban in any shape or form, nor was I ever in any real danger of being topic banned. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid this discussion, but my name was mentioned, and my positions mischaracterized. I don't think Ohconfucius needs to do any explaining. His record speaks for itself. I had spoken over at ArbCom in exasperation, as I'm sure any ArbCom presiding over the case would understand. Like Ohconfucius, I was also never in danger of any type of sanctions. My words should not be used in turn as threats against myself or any other user that have become involved in the Falun Gong articles over time. Colipon+(Talk) 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any intention of editing the Tiananmen Square self-immolation page so I am writing here what I think in a direct way.

I think Ohconfucius is a fine editor. He makes excellent contributions to the encyclopedia and the Wikipedia community; he edits a range of subjects, and does so fairly, enthusiastically, and without bias (with an exception, which I will get to). He has done a vast amount of work--personal time, which he could be doing whatever he wanted with--correcting Wikipedia style issues, which benefits every user of the encyclopedia. He is collegial, witty, and and nearly always agreeable, even when he feels strongly on a topic. I like him.

All that said, I am of the opinion that he should recuse himself from editing Falun Gong pages. When he edits Falun Gong pages, he does not do so fairly and without bias. He has a long and fraught history with the pages and in particular with Falun Gong practitioner-editors, which has strongly colored his approach to the subject. He is, subsequently, heavily emotionally and personally invested in the topic, and in promoting certain representations of Falun Gong. I remember reading remarks at one point which said he had felt physically sick from the antics on the Falun Gong pages. This kind of extreme personal and emotional investment in a topic is not healthy, and does not make for rational and fair editing. Partly due to this history and bad experiences in editing Falun Gong pages, Ohconfucius has become an anti-Falun Gong activist editor on Wikipedia. He is no longer collegial, but instead snarky, sharp, and often aggressive. He continues to see his engagement with Falun Gong-related pages as a kind of battle. When PCPP was banned after I brought to AE's attention PCPP's violation of his topic ban, Ohconfucius called it a "tactical victory" for the Falun Gong. It is as though Ohconfucius thinks he is in a war. He does not edit from any other perspective than the anti-Falun Gong one. He regularly makes aspersions about other editors, paranoiac accusations, and complaints about a Falun Gong cabal, despite the Falun Gong editors all having been now successfully vanquished. When he edits or comments, it is only to add disrepute to the group or sterilize its accusations of persecution. This is an endemic attitude. His conflict with Falun Gong practitioner-editors seems to have turned him into a battle-hardened proponent of certain viewpoints.

In the recent edits, judging by the history, he spent about five hours making a rapid flurry of changes. Ohconfucius has not edited the self-immolation page for years, and must have only found it recently. Seeing that it had departed far from how he left it, he proceeded to try to turn it back to the way it was. Usually, on a highly controversial page like this, one first signals their intention to make serious changes, and discusses them with other interested parties. Instead, Ohconfucius made dozens of changes in quick succession (about 50 changes), vastly changing important parts of the article, and introducing problematic content and clear bias, as Zujine pointed out. When Zujine challenged one small part of this big set of changes, Ohconfucius reverted him twice, in the last instance writing "Don't make me laugh." This was unilaterally edit warring on a controversial topic where he sought no consensus or discussion for his changes. In response to questions about his changes, he made accusations of bad faith. When it comes to Falun Gong, Ohconfucius feels he is fighting a war, rather than engaging in the editing of a scholarly and intellectual product and working with others who seek to do the same.

Ohconfucius is a great editor on other topics. To preserve his reputation, and sanity, I think he should simply get out of the Falun Gong game. This is clearly a deeply personal issue for him; he previously vowed never to edit Falun Gong pages again. It is clear why. I think he should stick to it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Two more things. Ohconfuncius has on a number of occasions openly doubted that Falun Gong is persecuted, and whether its members are really tortured. This is a highly fringe and extreme view. I don't think Ohconfucius realizes what an extraordinary position that is to take. The other thing is that I do not like writing these things about an editor I respect, and I apologize if it is seen as confrontational. So much time is being spent on these issues. It is a shame and can be avoided. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• @TSTF: Thank you for your comments. I would just reply that, as I have said numerous times before, I am more naturally a supporter of improving human rights in China and elsewhere and my record stands for itself. Yes, I often do quick fixes; but equally, I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and make tens if not hundreds of edits in quick succession should an article require it. For example, I did same at Foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong, Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics Question Time British National Party controversyand tens of other articles; you can also see that editing pattern at many Falun Gong articles in 2007-09. Most often, these flurry of small edits are done in the interests of increasing the transparency of the changes. I do not accept that my position is anti-Falun Gong – it certainly wasn't when I started I confess to not being the most pro-Falun Gong editor; but I'm not the most pro-CPC either, so where does that put me? If that is grounds for asking me to recuse myself, then that speaks volumes. If that is a principle to apply, then the only people qualified to edit to FLG articles would be FLG practitioners and members of the 6-10 office (sic), which seems to be getting close to the reality here, except that Samuel Luo was banished years ago, so the field has become relatively (used very advisedly) conflict-free but strangely one-sided.

  Falun Gong devotees have proven time and again that there is only one Truth, and that is the truth wrapped up in "truth, compassion and forbearance". Their insistence on extensive repetition of words like "persecution" – eschewing even synonyms like "suppression" – go against the rules good prose-writing in varying vocabulary. I, on the other hand, do try immensely hard to impart a comprehensive and disinterested view, and I often seek and accept advice when I am unsure or when I am told there is a certain issue. The self-immolation article could not have got to FAC without the help of SilkTork and Jayen; 2010 Nobel Peace Prize will get there before long, but I'm beginning to digress. My "battle-hardened" attitude, if I have one, is a product of years of having to deal with Falun Gong practitioners who edit these pages to spread The Truth™, and who like to banish whatever facts that they do not like, often by discrediting recognised experts or marginalising their views as not being within their area of expertise. Like the FLG itself, its practitioners supporters and apologists paint the CPC as the brutal enemy from whom nothing emanates but propaganda, yet their behaviour and rhetoric are paradoxically propagandistic. Whilst I appreciate your concern from my reputation and sanity, but let me assure you that no one is more concerned for those than I am. Whether I recuse myself from that article is still within the province of my personal choice. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:DATERET

Would you please stop your scripted converting from one valid date format into another valid date format? Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Some statistics of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season article which may be of interest to you:

  Overall

• number of dmy dates – 13
• mdy – 260+

Refs section:

• ISO dates – 69
• non-ISO access dates (dmy and mdy)– 39
• other number of non-MOSNUM compliant dates – 6

My edit aligned them all to mdy, the dominant format . What format would you have preferred me to align to? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain [3]. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Some statistics of the A1 road (London) article which may be of interest to you:

Body:

• dmy date – 1

Refs section:

• mdy publication dates – 1
• ISO publication dates – 16
• ISO access dates – 46
• dmy access dates – 7
• dmy archive dates – 16
• mdy archive dates – 6

My edit aligned them all to dmy, the usual format for articles on British subjects. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Then the predominant reference format appears to be "iso". Or are you claiming that "iso" format cannot be used in articles on British subjects? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon. It's 1-3 June and registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, just mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

Our goals for the event are to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 14:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

This is a note to let the main editors of Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 3, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 3, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident took place in Tiananmen Square in central Beijing on 23 January 2001. The incident is disputed: the official Chinese press agency, Xinhua News Agency, stated that five members of Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement, set themselves on fire to protest the unfair treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese government. The Falun Dafa Information Center stated the incident was a hoax staged by the Chinese government to turn public opinion against the group and to justify the torture and imprisonment of its practitioners. The incident received international news coverage, and video footage was broadcast later in the People's Republic of China by China Central Television. A wide variety of opinions and interpretations of what may have happened emerged: the event may have been set up by the government, it may have been an authentic protest, or the self-immolators "new or unschooled" practitioners, among others. The campaign of state propaganda that followed the event eroded public sympathy for Falun Gong, and the government began sanctioning "systematic use of violence" against the group. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

MUSNUM dates script issue

Hi. Your script changes "12 September the 5th Battalion" to "12 September 5 Battalion". E.g. here. It would be great if you could fix this issue. Thanks! 1exec1 (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Date script.

Hello, could you give me a hand with your script. It has installed OK and I have the date options in my Toolbox, but when I click on them the script reloads the edit window but no changes have been made. I've tried the script in both Firefox and Google Chrome with the same results. Could you given me some pointers to what the problem may be? Thanks. - X201 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I see that you have indeed installed it in your vector file. If you see the buttons ('ALL dates to dmy', 'ALL dates to mdy', 'Body dates to dmy, 'Body dates to mdy') in the toolbar on the left, I can see no reason why it won't work. I have not had any other reports of it not running; I reinstalled it just now, and it works for me. It could be that the article you ran the script on has been recently processed. If it has not be recently processed, the script should make some changes, even if it is to just update the date on the {{Use dmy dates}} tag. If the script has completed its run, it should automatically refresh to show changes made and register an edit summary at the same time. The only thing I can suggest for now is to refresh you browser cache again, try clicking on any (or all) of the aforementioned buttons when in the edit window of any article. You may try it on these test pages, or editing any article on one of these lists. Let me know how you get on, exactly which of the above indicators you see and don't see. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Just curious, though. I notice that you have had the script installed since 4 November. Has it ever worked, or did it break down recently? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It has never worked. I've tried it at various times since November, always with the same result. Whichever date option I choose from the toolbox results in the script refreshing the edit page but not actually making any changes. Have tried it on the test pages mentioned above with same results. Have tried it on different browsers and different computers. Its a shame really because its a script I could really make use of. - X201 (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an article where it isn't working, but it should be? -Rrius (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I can do better than that. I can point to a culprit. I've just gone through my Preferences/Gadgets options turning off, in-turn, each gadget that I have installed. The culprits appear to be wikEd and HotCat. With both enabled your script doesn't work. With either of them disabled your script works as it should. - X201 (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I can do better than that. I can point to a culprit. I've just gone through my Preferences/Gadgets options turning off, in-turn, each gadget that I have installed. The culprit appears to be wikEd. With it enabled your script doesn't work. With wikEd disabled your script works as it should. - X201 (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you had WikiEd installed, but then again I never realised that it conflicted with my script. But I'm glad you found the reason. It's also good to know for future reference. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Ohconfucius. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

MOSNUM script

Hi. I've been using your great MOSNUM script lately. After running into several bugs and being unable to fix things due to the complexity of the script, I decided to simplify things a bit. I think the resulting script could be interesting to you as the number and the size of the regexes were both reduced by more than three times while keeping all the features! The script implements a custom regex language, which allows to remove most of the duplication and makes the regexes quite understandable. For example, one can just say @Month and the regex will match a month in all known formats. It might even be useful to eventually replace the current MOSNUM script with this one, since the maintaining burden would be so much lower. Of course, the script currently is still not tested rigorously (I've generated some tests though) and has lower performance. Despite that, it should have quite a lot of potential. 1exec1 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Very interesting indeed. I think I've already confessed my lack of programming skills, and I'm grateful for your help in improving the script. I've just installed it in place of my original script and will give it a comprehensive test run. More anon. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Looking great! I've run it on a few articles, and the script seems very fast. Please have a look at test I ran on three test pages: (User:Full-date unlinking bot/Test environment, User:Dl2000/testtemp7, User:Ohconfucius/test/imagedates)s.

  At the moment, I'm just trying to understand the code in your version, so I'll comment more at a later date. BTW, thanks for writing such detailed comments in the script itself – it's a great help in understanding how the customised code functions. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting regex engine from a quick look at 1exec1's script. I've been working with another type of engine which breaks up article content in various ways - quotation sections, links/cats, templates, blockquotes, "normal" prose. That way, refactoring of dates within quotations can usually be avoided - except in a few cases where quotes are not properly matched, something which needs a manual fix anyway. Titles/italics should generally be left intact, again editors may occasionally forget to close off the italic properly. Such scans can be limited to within the paragraph and reset after the next paragraph break to limit the effect on scanning. Anyway, due to current priorities over the next week or so, I may not be able to examine scripts in much detail. Dl2000 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviation script

I tried to expand dates at UK Border Agency with User:Ohconfucius/script/dateabbreviations, but for some reason it will only expand the ref in a {{cite web}} template. The other refs are left untouched. I did not save changes in case leaving it will help you diagnose the problem. -Rrius (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the notification. As already mentioned, the script will only treat certain dates, or dates in certain situations. This is to avoid the potential problems of false positives, particularly as abbreviated dates are often used in image names; I also occasionally see the use of abbreviated dates in tables, and whether they are suitable to being expanded will obviously depend on the individual table. My MOSNUM script is currently undergoing a major overhaul, and I will re-examine this issue in the course of this rewrite. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (policy) discussion on hidden lang tags

Recent vp discussion for your info. Dl2000 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Liubaorong.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Liubaorong.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

San Diego Zoo

You recently removed all linking in the lead and infobox to San Diego and California in this article. In all the zoo articles I have dealt with (i.e., most of them by now), the location information has been linked in both places since way before I started editing. I'm guessing that removing links from the infobox is because of redundancy, and if that's the case, I can help eliminate the infobox links as I go through other articles. I'm more curious as to the reason for removing all of the links to the city and state. Don Lammers (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to have confused you with my inconsistent unlinking, and thanks for drawing my attention to it. I shouldn't have unlinked all three successively chained links. I did mean to leave Balboa Park (San Diego), whilst undoing the other two. [[San Diego]] and [[California]]are sufficiently well-known at the same time as being indirect enough (i.e not germane) to the subject so as not to be linked. I've now recreated the link to Balboa Park with its full name in the pipe. That is less bothersome and aesthetically disruptive than the chained sequence [[Balboa Park (San Diego)|Balboa Park]], [[San Diego]], [[California]]. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited United States at the 2010 Winter Olympics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Altenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Query

[4] Explain why you changed the format of nearly all the dates in this article;; it appears to me to be a clear violation of WP:DATERET. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I see you've undone it. Slipped up; in need of a strong coffee. Apols. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Given how long this has been going on, calling it a "slip up" is not good enough. What effective means will you take to avoid doing this in the future? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the post below - do you have any intent to stop changing iso dates? Despite past promises from you to stop, your ongoing strategy appears to be to do whatever you want, and "apologize" for any particular edits people complain about. That's not responsible. If you will not provide any effective strategy to use the script responsibly, then you don't need to use the script. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• You are insinuating that I'm acting irresponsibly, and that I'm going about it in a cavalier and gung-ho manner, which is of course totally untrue and very upsetting to me. You are the only person repeatedly beating me up, and it's getting a wee bit tiring. You seem to disallow me any leeway to err, although it is intrinsic to the human condition. I do try my best with the mission of cleaning up the disarray of dates without impacting the other acceptable formats; I constantly adjust my script – there's currently a major rewrite being trialled as we speak – and I adapt the way that I work with it according to the needs of the article.

  The list of articles I'm working on contains only those with a mix of dmy and mdy in the references section. Of course, ISO dates will coexist but are not specifically targeted in the selection, but the selection does mean no article with purely ISO dates in the reference section will be worked on. After article selection, choosing what module of the script to run is a decision that needs to be taken at each juncture, at an individual article level. I can only emphasise that it is a human decision. The end result is a function of the perfection of my script, my physical condition (or that of any person using my script), the article selection process, and the appropriate choice of script function(s) – of which I have nearly 40 to choose from – for any given article. I may be doing too much gnoming with scripts at present, causing a rise in the error rate, and I can but apologise for it. There are also too many functions/buttons, created in an attempt to cater for specific article needs, but I will work to limit their proliferation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence indicates that the effect of your edits is to remove iso dates from WP, including articles in which references or accessdates are entirely or mostly in iso. If you do not intend that effect, what are you doing to avoid that effect? How frequently do you remove iso dates "by accident" as opposed to removing the non-iso dates, even when they are a small minority? How frequently do you check your edits and undo them without prompting? Your edit to aloe vera was among 8 in the same minute. I know how long it takes to review and approve fairly simple edits, and yours are not simple edits. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

America's Cup

I've reverted your change to British English at America's Cup per WP:ENGVAR. Please discuss further on the talk page. Mojoworker (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

ITNR for elections

As someone who regularly contributes to election articles: Due to recurrent discussions that lead nowhere, an open-ended discussion and proposals are invited Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections for ITN on the main page as to what should be recurrent without ITNC discussionsLihaas (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Date formats in Aloe vera

A few of the dates in the references were in an inconsistent style, but most were in the ISO standard format, which is perfectly acceptable in references. So why did you change them all to the American format, rather than changing the one or two British and American formats to the ISO format? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, you're right. I put them back. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for "style fixes, incl. align dates, links and italics" script

Hi there, I just wanted to leave my thoughts on you auto style fixing. Setting all the dates in an article to a common format is great, but I've had to undo about half of your other changes to Virginia, and I wanted to point out the errors this script creates. Number one is changing the titles in a reference. Sometimes references just use the wrong dash, or use a YYYY-MM-DD dates in their titles, but changing either I feel would violate verifiability. Second is unlinking items in a table or template (like an infobox). WP:BTW specifically suggests that items in a table be linked, and removing these because this script feels they're too "common" should be stopped. Lastly, the script changed dollar signs to commas, so clearly something is wrong. I just really think you need to review your changes more closely before plowing this script through so many articles.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also noticed that on Virginia Seismic Zone, your edit changed the negative signs in the latitude/longitude to long dashes, which are incorrect. Not all dashes need to be changed! I imagine this could also break various Coord templates.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 18:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message. I've reviewed my changes in light of you comments and modifications. Indeed there seems to be a problem. As you will have already seen in Virginia, yes, publishers often "get dashes wrong", but our house style prevails because minor typographic changes are acceptable – most search engines are tolerant of the confusion between hyphens, minus signs, en- and em-dashes; thus no risk is posed to verifiability.

  I notice that there was a problem of false negatives with some dates, but strangely I cannot reproduce the same false negative when I run the script over the article again. I am studying the issue of the removal of '$4', and will monitor it.

  As to the overlinking, I would certainly take issue with the repeated linking that seems to pervade the article. Whilst the generic and low-value link to 'coal mining' was removed, you replaced it with the more specific and valuable 'coal mining in the USA', but you really ought to question the necessity of linking The Washington Post in excess of 25 times (in the refs section), when it is already prominently linked to in the body of the article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Patrick, I corrected a hyphen to a minus sign in a settlement infobox lat/long value last week, and an editor kindly pointed out that it's not displayed anyway, and that the template doesn't handle minus signs. If not displayed, I'm kewl about this, of course. But where lat and long are displayed, both WP:MOSNUM, the ISO, and many authoritative style guides in English insist on the minus sign. Mathematicians seem to be particularly fussy about it. Can you stay on this one and advise us, please? Tony (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, as long as we're aware that the titles are being changed. Personally, I'd like to keep the titles as close to the original as possible, as I regularly have to hunt down sources in order to fix dead links. With lat/long, a negative value means either South or West, so "-44°" is the same as "44°W", and I bet the infobox is fixing it since the cardinal direction is generally preferable.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed wikilinks in the "work" parameter of the "cite web" and "cite news" templates, in this case on Glee (season 1). There is no consensus that this is appropriate; in past discussions, some people feel that each reference should have its own link to the work's page, and some people feel only the first should have it. Under the circumstances, I don't think your wholesale changes are appropriate, and plan to revert these unless you can point me at a new consensus that says that refs should now be handled this way. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Grace Towns Hamilton fixes

First of all, thank you for the helpful fixes for Grace Towns Hamilton. I noticed you changed the style on some reference access dates to the American style, from what the WP cite templates had inserted, making the Notes section a bit inconsistent on that issue. I notice that when we sign a message here, the dates automatically show up like the cite templates themselves use.Maile66 (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I don't understand. All the dates in the entire article should be consistent, but the body dates were mdy and the reference dates were dmy (Date autoformatting has been disabled for over two years already). It's not the first time I've noticed this being done, and I would point out that these two formats should not co-exist within the same article, per WP:MOSNUM, except where the diverging dates are the result of verbatim quotes or titles of works. I'll leave you to decide what format to go with, but I would say that the majority of USA-related articles use the mdy format throughout. Regards, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just reverted your edit to Tsinghua University.

I had to revert your edit to Tsinghua University. While adding references is certainly a good thing, your edit somehow messed up the article formatting, removing some of the Chinese text, adding stray line breaks, and corrupting an image box. It also overwrote a few valid edits which were made just before your change was submitted. Sorry to make work for you, but could you redo it? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've fixed some of the problems where you expressed concerns. I would however mention that most of the formatting changes are deliberate. The Chinese text of the U's name was ejected in line with guidelines to avoid cluttering up the lead; the image box was not corrupt – I deliberately placed an image of the university into a 'Chinese' infobox. The line breaks are inert, and I only overwrote one minor edit due to the edit conflict which I've already reinstated. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

merging

hey, would not it be a good idea to merge Afro-Hispanic people, with Afro-Latin American? I can not immediately see what gører the two populations are different. Are Latino and Hispanic are not two words for the same? And used Hispanic, in languages ​​other than English? Good day here. regards 89.249.2.53 (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory English variant tagging

Looks like your scripting is adding {{Use British English}} on top of {{Use Australian English}} in cases such as Deep Blue (album). If there's an AusEng tag, it should not be supplemented or replaced with a different variant tag unless an ENGVAR-type variant change is warranted. Dl2000 (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I know it's happened before. The code in the script you worked on for me to handle this issue doesn't seem to work. So I very often have to remove the {{Use British English}} tag manually, but do overlook them from time to time, for which I do apologise for any confusion caused to you or others. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Laundry lists and article probation

May I remind you that, whilst it is acceptable to include lists of notable individuals, associates, or other members of a subject, it is against policy to include laundry lists of non-notable performers. It's certainly not, nor ever has been, generally acceptable to include a list of the full roster of any troupe, except by editors who are unfamiliar with our policies. You are, of course, fully aware that the Shen Yun article belongs to the Falun Gong category of articles which is directly subject to article probation under the purview of Arbcom. Kindly do not edit war, or you will be blocked. Thanks for your attention. Regards, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have developed a bizarre habit of coming to my talk page to register your disappointment with perfectly reasonable edits. I don't know why you keep doing this, but I'm going to start deleting this stuff. You can refer to the article talk pages if you want to discuss content. On this particular issue, the editor who initially added that list provided sound rationale for doing so on the talk page, noting that "comparable pages like American Ballet Theatre, Ballet San Jose, San Francisco Ballet, and New York City Ballet" include lists of performers exactly like the one that was included on the page about Shen Yun. Including a list of performers within a page about that performing arts groups does not seem to me to be violation of to the "not a directory" policy. Seeing as the addition of this content was explained on the talk page previously, and that is doesn't present a problem in terms of content policies and guidelines, I might suggest that the onus is on you to explain yourself for edit warring over its deletion (indeed, you are much closer to that threshold than I). Homunculus (duihua) 12:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I posted to your talk page because I thought you would appreciate direct feedback on the issue, but it seems that I am mistaken, and that you treat my courtesy as spam. Never mind. Are you seriously trying to compare the Shen Yun performers to ballerinas of the American Ballet Theatre, Ballet San Jose, San Francisco Ballet, and New York City Ballet??? Instead of coming here in your belligerence, perhaps you could demonstrate how these individuals at Shen Yun have a fraction of the notability of those ballerinas ? I wouldn't object to retaining a section entitled 'Artists' or 'Performers', and then list those who are notable, together with their role, if any. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you were trying to be courteous, I apologize for misreading you. I suppose my confusion derives from the fact that you have, in the last couple months, come to my talk page to call (normal, policy-compliant) edits "horrendous"[5] ; have suggested that a page I wrote drawing on sources like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the Telegraph was an example of unencyclopedic tabloid gossip[6]; and most recently, made a barely veiled threat of arbitration because I restored content that you have now twice deleted, based on a rather novel reading of policy. Maybe I am too sensitive, but this is certainly starting to feel like mild harassment, whether or not that was the intent. I trust that, knowing my feeling on the matter, you will stick to using the article talk pages if you wish to discuss content.

I'm not interested in devoting the time to demonstrate the notability of these performers, though the editor who added that content did express the desire to build out more of their pages. I will leave a note on that editor's page and see if they have any follow-up.Homunculus (duihua) 12:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's good to know. Since you feel that way, I think it's better if I stayed off your talk page from now on. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's one solution. Note that I have no problem with editors coming to my page to discuss matters in a collegial manner, to ask questions, solicit help, etc. I do also try to welcome reproach if I'm behaving in a legitimately inappropriately manner.Homunculus (duihua) 12:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

MOSNUM dates non-functional

Hi Ohconfucius. Your (very useful) MOSNUM script appears to have been broken by the recent changes to the diff viewer (unless something else went in this week?). I can sometimes get it to work, but only after clearing local cache and force-refreshing etc. Any chance you could take a look? Cheers, Nikthestoned 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• So far, I'm not finding any problem. Please could you indicate in what way it's 'broken'? I'll keep looking. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 11.0 - if that has any bearing. All I'm doing is opening a page, hitting edit and clicking on any of the "convert date" links... I can't do it on this very page right now! Nikthestoned 13:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm also using FF11.0 (on iMac), but the script is successfully and consistently loading each time. I've looked at both your monobook and vector pages and they seem OK. One possible thing to try is to disable all other scripts by placing two forward slashes (//) in front of the other lines, and reactivating them one by one if 'MOSNUM script' works on its own.

Failing that, you could try your luck with my test script version 1, my test script version 2, or one of the other scripts mentioned at Wikipedia:Date_formattings#Scripts. In the meantime, I'll ask around some technical people if they know of any problems. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Somebody a lot more tech-savvy than me says that the change only affects display, so the malfunctioning of the script is rather mysterious. There have been no changes to the script for ten days. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, clearing of all caches and multiple browsers restarts yesterday proved fruitless, hence me coming here to ask if anyone else had seen it... And yet today, after having observed this issue once this morning, I now cannot replicate! Umm, so I guess sorry for the bother lol - I honestly was having major problems yesterday! Thanks anyways, Nikthestoned 15:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Malfunctions with scripts do seem to happen occasionally, and I'm suspect one of the problem sources may be the tinkering with the mediawiki software. The important thing is that the script is working for you again. Regards, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chelmsford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Perth

German battleship Gneisenau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brest

Google Street View privacy concerns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PC World

Private housing estates in Hong Kong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ma On Shan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics in BLPs

Hey. The issue of diacritics in BLPs is now under discussion at Wikipedia talk:BLP#Actual draft proposal. I'm dropping you this note on behalf of In ictu oculi. Prolog (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Accessdate format again!

You recently made changes to accessdate format in Litre. I realize you added some accessdates, but before you did so ALL accessdates were in YYYY-MM-DD format, and you added them in DD MMMM YYYY format. --- THEN you changed all accessdates to DD MMMM YYYY format. If you cannot stomach adding accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD format, then please just leave them alone. I have NEVER - without your being requested to do so as a self-reversion - seen you change accessdates to YYYY-MM-DD format. Adding an inconsistent format does not justify following yourself up to change everything to your own preference. If you are making changes to observe WP policies, please observe those policies -- otherwise, please leave those formats alone. --JimWae (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also: previous to this edit] of George Washington only ONE retrieved date was not in YYYY-MM-DD format, yet you changed all to MMMM DD, YYYY format. If you will not make changes in accordance with [[WP::DATERET]], then please do not make the change at all--JimWae (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any explanation as to why accessdates should be in yyyy-mm-dd when the publication dates are in another format? It is completely irrational to say that all dates in the body should in one format, but that two different date formats can be used in the reference sections, for a possible total of three different date formats in the same article. Unlike tables and the like, there is no space constraint in reference sections, so there is no obvious reason for there to be any difference between reference sections the body, let alone a difference within the reference section. If it is okay to use different formats within the references, why the devil does MOS:DATEUNIFY even exist? Dates in a reference are essentially both the same sentence, so if having them differ is not a problem, why is it wrong to have differing formats at different places in the same article that might not even be on the same screen? If it is okay to use two formats side-by-side where one uses words and the other didn't, why can't we, as many people do in normal writing, render some dates with the day as an ordinal and and others with a cardinal number? The whole point of most of the Manual of Style is to achieve uniformity, often making arbitrary decisions to do so. Preserving yyyy-mm-dd dates turns that on its head by arbitrarily enforcing a lack of uniformity where an article back in the days when the citation templates autoformatted dates was edited with yyyy-mm-dd. Put aside the existence of WP:DATERET and MOS:DATEUNIFY for a minute and answer this: what precisely is the benefit of having two completely different styles in the reference section? -Rrius (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue policy. OhC is making edits that conflict with policy.--JimWae (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If anything, it is your interpretation of it. It is hard to see using two separate date formats as being a format, and therefore something entitled to be retained. I have started a discussion at at the appropriate place, so we shall see if you have some justification of the underlying situation or are simply attempting to enforce a guideline for its own sake. -Rrius (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[7] What's the explanation for this edit, which changed some of the accessdates away from the established format? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Gimme, I'm confused: there's a mixture of dates in the refs, so don't they need to be harmonised? I don't see the problem. Tony (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. In this article, OC's edit changed some of the the accessdates from the clearly majority format (yyyy-mm-dd) to something else.. OC's edi t added inconsistency to the article. Are you saying you support inconsistency? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a glitch in the script, which I have now fixed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought. It looked like the script was changing every date in any reference where it changed one date. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I just found Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Leningradartist, from what I can make of the translated version he didn't have permission to upload the images. Not sure if this has any bearing on all the articles here or not... SmartSE (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:MOSNUM Bot

Sorry, don't mean to be rude at all, but this username implies a bot, is it a bot? If yes, could you please halt it and put on its userpage the bot tasks, link(s) to their approval page(s) and the shutdown procedure. BTW, why such edits are being saved [8]? Adding reflist muticolumns for a few references [9] will be opposed by many (say, reflinks autoremoves them in such cases). Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a bot, and not running bot tasks. I open maybe a hundred browser tabs in each run, edit and check the pages and press the save key manually also a hundred times successively. I just didn't want such trivial edits clogging up my contributions history and showing up on my browser as dark blue links. You're right I should make this clear on the userpage. I'm sorry the {{reflist|30em}} tag doesn't fit in very well here. I insert this on almost all the pages I gnome, and I find it's useful in >80 percent of cases. I am aware that it's not ideally suited to pages with fewer than mabye 5 references, so I'll stop inserting it. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for explanation. Fine, but user:MOSNUM Bot may be blocked at any moment per misleading name. Please sort this out - either ask to rename the account or ask to block it and use another one. Materialscientist (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, it was set up with the intention of running bot tasks focussed on MOSNUM. I thought it would be silly to create yet another account for the purpose. If you believe it is a better idea to rename, I'll do that instead. Or perhaps create a throwaway account. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  OC: this 30em thing: is it something I need to worry about? Sounds like it's unsatisfactory. Tony (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  (ec :-) "Bot" in the username implies automated operation, whereas you (a person) verify every edit - this makes a big difference, and might create a confusion. If you want to keep past edits with the account, then ask to rename it, otherwise, I would just create another one, without "bot" in the username. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  It will only be a concern where there are only a small number of references in any given article. In my gnoming, I go back and remove maybe a small handful that my script inserts. MS above expresses the concern specifically in the context of what look like high-speed automated edits. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  So if there are, say, four or fewer refs for an article, it should be removed ... Tony (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

DMY durations

I have noticed that you use DMY in the article 2011 Pacific typhoon season, but durations become so ridiculous in the Season effects section. Most of them are still in MDY, and a few become MDY+DMY. How should we handle the durations for DMY?

In addition, the script does not work when the date is April 1 and the duration is April 1 – 2.-- Meow 16:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. Indeed it looks like I made a mess of it. I've put the dates back to mdy for now. I'll go back and see what else needs fixing later today, or tomorrow. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Removal of superscripted ordinals"

You're doing a lot of very fast edits removing superscripted ordinals (at around an edit every 2 seconds, at some points). Are you using some sort of automated script or tool for that? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that you are using a script. Looking through the code very quickly, it appears that you have set it to save articles immediately. This means you're running a bot, as it's making automated changes to the article with no manual input other than clicking the button to make it run. Like I say, I did only glance at the code, so correct me if I'm wrong about that. Shouldn't you be using doaction('diff') or somesuch, to allow you to review the edits first? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing it out. Instead of using my production script, I used my test script. I'm swapping accounts and scripts. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you are checking all the edits manually? You may need to slow down a bit and look at them closer, to avoid mistakes like this. I've reverted that for now, but you may want to run through it again (also removing the small tag, perhaps). Regex isn't really suited to parsing languages like wiki markup. It can be done for simple find and replace jobs (like the one you're doing) but even then you need to be careful, so make sure you stay on the lookout for errors like that one. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Swapping {{zh}} for {{Chinese}}

Uhm.. What is the reason for this? These are two completely different templates (the formr is used inline in the text and the latter is an infobox). Take a look at the lead paragraph [10]. Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Collapsible list

The script already takes care of dates that are inside a Collapsible List, could it be altered to edit the Collapsible List Title field as well? Example - X201 (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly. For now, the |title= is deliberately protected from the script to prevent document titles from being changed. But if the search string can be made unique enough as not to conflict with |title= inside citation templates, of course it could be done. For the script to be effective, I would ask how frequent such occurrences are, and what form these dates normally take. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

British English

Hi.First of all, this is a pedantic point, so apologies in advance. Anyway, I noticed your recent edit of Irish language and noted that you were changing American to British spellings. However, the only spellings you changed were of the words "organization", "palatalization" and "velarization", replacing the "z" with an "s". Actually, the "z" spelling is also common in British English, and is the first version given in the Oxford English Dictionary, which as you probably know is considered as authoritative a source as any. Just for future reference! As far as the article is concerned, it was probably as well to change it one way or another for the sake of consistency as both forms were already there. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I notice you worked through Prashant Bhushan changing it to British English throughout. You clearly did not realise that the article was written in Canadian English, which does not favor either British or American spelling but mixes and matches at random, sometimes spelling the same word both ways in one sentence. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I didn't mean to tread on any toes. Actually, I did not realise, nor is there any way a third party is likely to know or be able to surmise the spelling variant. Even if it were made obvious what spellings were used, as the subject is not Canadian, but Indian, it's questionable to adopt "randomised" Canadian spelling; it's even more questionable to use two different spellings of a word in the same sentence. I believe that essentially "British" is closer to how Indians would spell most words. Do let me know if you would require articles aligned to Canadian, my script can make most of the necessary spelling alignments in the same way. Regards, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Just kidding. I really appreciate the changes. For an article on an Indian subject quoting Indian sources, British English is clearly the most appropriate. But it is true that Canadians are often very inconsistent in their spelling, so that is my excuse. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so glad you were only kidding. I was concerned what I said would really upset you. :) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're using a script to do this, then I strongly recommend you don't let it change British "-ize" spellings to "-ise" automatically. It should leave any such spellings alone, as they're perfectly acceptable in British English. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Where I see a tag indicating the article is written in the Oxford variant, I do have a {{Use British (Oxford) English}} function that gets engaged instead of the default {{Use British English}}. Most of the time, leaving such spellings alone tends to allow proliferation of a mix of -ise and -ize spellings.

I see where you're coming from, but such a tag is unlikely to be put in place by most editors, even if they know of the existence of American and British English tags. I was trained professionally to use this spelling and never heard of it being called "the Oxford variant" - it was just the standard form used in the organization (not organisation...) I was working for... Since your scripts seemed to be the object of extraordinary care and attention (really it's quite impressive) could you not get them to work by majority vote and standardize/ise to the form more commonly used on a given page? If not, is occasional inconsistency within an article more deleterious than removing almost every instance of a perfectly valid form of British English spelling? (And, why am I so concerned about it? I couldn't honestly say!) Yours queryingly, ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of the time, it's not easy to tell if the spelling is deliberate, or by accident. Often articles are edited by Americans, and they are replete with Americanisms and American spellings which, of course you know, includes using z-words just like they do in the OED. Even in articles where there are no other US spelling variants (like artifact, favor, honor), there is often a mix of s- and z- words. But usually, when I come across these, I pause and look for more clues. If it's purely z-words, I tend to leave them alone and tag the article 'British (Oxford)' instead of 'British'. I trust this addresses your concern. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed, thanks for taking the time to explain it. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Date style changes on Cahokia

Before this edit [11], 12 dates were yyyy-mm-dd, and 2 others were of different styles in the ref accessdates, yet instead of changing the 2 that disagreed, you changed them all to month dd, yyyy. Why not stick to the style that the majority of editors on the page seem to be using? MOS:DATEUNIFY says yyyy-mm-dd is an acceptable style and was used 12-2 in the article. What gives? Heiro 01:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius has edited since this note and did not respond here. This prima facie appears to be a violation of WP:DATERET. Ohconfucius has been warned about this many times. I have alerted an arbitrator. [12] Gimmetoo (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not respond because I saw that my mistake had been almost immediately undone. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's a reasonable explanation. Gimmetoo (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

[13] I also wanted to thank you for this edit. I know we disagree on some things, and it's good to see when we can agree. I also saw that you have changed some of your editing behaviour in light of our discussions. In particular, you don't seem to change the accessdates as much.

Perhaps this is an opportunity for us to discuss and come to some agreement on guidelines for unifying dates in articles.

In general, I think styles should be synchronized in a way that results in the least change to the article. That means if there is a majority style, it should be chosen. I don't necessarily mean count them all (though we could easily with the scripts), but if 60% or 70% of the accessdates are already in one form, I generally think that form should be retained (though other considerations may apply, too). Does that sound reasonable?

Changing the article the least, in some cases, means putting publication dates in one style and accessdates in another. Since I have seen you change dates and not accessdates, I thought you were sensitive to separate styles for body dates, publication dates, and accessdates.

I would also like to hear your thoughts on the citation style where the style in the references matches the style used in each publication referenced. I realize retaining that style throws a wrench into scripts, and I don't use it on WP (for reasons unrelated to scripts), but I know others do and it is used professionally. What do you think? Gimmetoo (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Two days, no response. Opportunity gone, I guess. Gimmetoo (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'll get back to you. Apols. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop all the trivial edits

Please stop revising pages over and over and over just to change a space or a dash. You're adding layers of near-useless revisions all over the site, and it destroys the usability of people's watch lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.45.205 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ho ould you know? IPs don't have watchlists. Please log on to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be helpful if you could supply a few diffs. Changing hyphens into dashes where appropriate are necessary typographical changes are are not considered inconsequential edits. And I don't just do spacing changes. Most are part of much more significant edits concerning date alignment, formatting fixes for refs, etc. Do you perhaps think I be marking them minor edits, because the vast majority aren't? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Friendly warning about warring at MOSPN

You replied to my requests for details about you accusations with the comment "pretend you don't know what I'm talking about all you like". I would not like to pretend, which is why I asked you for details. Dismissing my request for details about your allegations and then writing "You carry on like that and I will see to it you get blocked" (your emphasis) does not help me understand what it is that you think I have done. Please follow up you general observations with details, otherwise your request is unreasonable as I do not know what you are talking about. -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This isn't for the shared view on the authority of sports websites as "reliable sources" for spelling non-anglo living persons' names (cough!), that is just the coincidental reminder for thanks for myriad other contributions. 加油！ In ictu oculi (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks :-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Templating the regulars and Donald Tsang

It is not appropriate to template the regulars. Please do not leave boilerplate templates on the talk pages of established users. For your information, I have only reverted twice in the last 24 hours so that is nowhere close to the 3RR violation. My edits are only directed to be sensitive towards a living person who's biography we are embroiled in a dispute over. Previous discussions on the BLP noticeboard (such as this one) have concluded that it is not appropriate to use a title which the subject himself does not prefer using. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• WP:TEMPLAR is but an essay; it has no status as a policy or guideline. I'm sorry that you are offended by me leaving a template on your talk. There was no intention to offend. Anyways, there is still a prohibition on 'slow edit warring', and I felt that your two reverts of yesterday could be added to previous attempts in previous weeks to force your way on the article. Whilst ultimately we must cede to consensus, I find it an anathema to consider the views of an individual as to their own WP biography: They have no rights over it so long as it's factually correct and not defamatory. If we were indeed to consider inclusion of certain facts because some editors believe the subject may deem it "inconvenient" or "inappropriate" – and he has by no means so deemed any part of it – we would be down a slippery slope of pre-emptive self-censorship. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

turning x into × in multiplication contexts

OC, I see you've been experimenting with this in your script. Nice! And the non-breaking spaces around this MOSNUM-required formatting were a good idea. But one needs to carefully watch for false positives for a while. How can I use it myself? Tony (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• watch for changes in the formatting script... coming up soon. :-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

U.S. v. Commonwealth English in Anna Wintour

Re your recent edit to Anna Wintour, I see the logic but you must admit this is a borderline case as she arguably has strong ties to both the US and UK. I wrote it in US English because, well, that's where I'm from, but also I felt it justified because she's lived and worked in New York now for most of the last 35 years, which is about half her life. Nevertheless I'd be interested in what you have to say. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• You're quite right that such decisions are not cut and dry, and I would apologise for the change that brought you here. My first reflex was that her article ought to be in British style because she seems to identify herself as such. Thus for me, nationality is the first and foremost basis for choosing the article format. I did hesitate on seeing that she has spent many years in the USA, and is married to an American, but she seems to have retained her British nationality. Then again, there are plenty of US citizens working in the UK and vice-versa; the respective governments accept the notion of dual nationality, so these are not not necessarily powerful arguments. But on balance, I would point to anecdotal evidence that some articles on subjects like her – Britons who have chosen to live on the other side of 'the pond' (such as John Lloyd) – or who are described as 'Anglo-American' (such as Christopher Hitchens) having dmy dates and British spellings (not by my hand, I would hasten to add), so I went ahead and changed the style on that basis. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I'll try to keep it that way in future edits. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Germans

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

-ise vs -ize in Pakistan

Hello Ohconfucius. Thanks for the corrections you made to Pakistan a few hours ago. There are a couple of points I'd like to take up with you about it, though. One is that you placed {{Use British English}} at the head of the article, but in fact it was already tagged {{Use Pakistani English}}. I've overwritten the British tag with the Pakistani one.

The other is perhaps more a discussion for a rainy day, but I wonder what philosophy you are applying to -ise/-ize endings with such edits? It isn't correct to say that British spelling means, for example, that subsidise must be used and that subsidize is incorrect. Oxford Spelling is perfectly valid and is admitted by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling/Words ending with "-ise" or "-ize". It's discussed in more depth in American and British English spelling differences#Greek-derived spellings. So, strictly speaking, I think that -ise or -ize spellings should not be altered in any BrEng article that applies one choice consistently. The Pakistan talk page is long and heated, and you probably coudn't be expected to have noticed it, but we had actually discussed and reached a decision already at Talk:Pakistan#-ise or -ize?. Please don't trouble to alter it back -- other corrections you made were right and we don't actually mind, but just for future reference ... Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• replied at the Pakistan talk page. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, I saw your message at the Talk:Cadereyta Jiménez massacre. I replied to it. Maybe we can fix things out. Thank you! ComputerJA (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Clifford

I usually move the redirect page, Mark Clifford to the target. That deletes the target and then restore all the deleted edits (which I forgot just now) and restore the correct version. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merci beaucoup! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Some redesign of the way MOSNUM script is handled?

Hi,

I think it's worth to change the way the MOSNUM script is handled in such a way that all changes could be tracked in a single location and everyone could add fixes to the script. My proposal is the following:

1. there are another separate set of pages for the script in your userspace
2. these pages don't have a .js suffix - they can be edited by everyone
3. the changes are introduced to these pages in such a way, that only one thing is changed with commit, e.g. one bug fixed, a single reorganization, etc. Each change must have a good explanation in the edit summary why the change has been made.

Let me know what do you think about this. 1exec1 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know how to make scripts (anything with the .js suffix) 'public'. My guess is that they need to be in a public place and not userspace. If removing the suffix doesn't disable the functionality and allow it to be imported and used, then it may be worthwhile to investigate. But it requires a knowledge of the metawiki environment. Maybe Plastikspork (talk · contribs) can advise. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• The problem with a public editable script is that any vandal will come along and make "updates" in a manner that those executing the modified script will generate wacky effects on articles. I suspect that pages without .js may not be executable as scripts because of such security concerns. Common scripts will have to live with significant protection; not sure if metawiki can handle custom protection e.g. a specific set of users, especially non-admins, may access it; and if so, whether admins/maint folks will wish to support such setups for specific scripts. Dl2000 (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, these are indeed very valid concerns. In that case, 1exec1 and I need to find a way to make convergent changes, and if possible to try and simulate a 'single version'. The redesign has opened new possibilities for the evolution of script functionailties, and since the redesign I have been tweaking and adding tasks that weren't so simple to create in its old guise. But I suspect that the flurry of changes should settle down and we should have a stable version of the script in about another two months. Minor tweaks will be unavoidable, to deal with the dynamic way in which others input date strings. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• For information, I already have two versions of the script: a test version and a production version, which only incorporates stable and reliable code proven after testing on hundreds of articles. I split off the regex worker engine but I don't know how to modify that code even if I wanted to. As a first step, we could move that latter into 1exec1 userspace so he can maintain it. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's better to have all production scripts in your userspace as you are maintaining the final product. I can't guarantee my presence in case something breaks up. Consider the following situation: I introduce a seemingly innocent change, and then don't appear in Wikipedia for a week. This wouldn't end up well as you couldn't even revert my changes. If the page is in your userspace, the improvements can still be added, so there's no point for moving the script into my userspace.

As for the public version I proposed, I certainly agree it's not a good idea to let users to include that page directly. I consider it like the "master" version where all new ideas would go. These changes would go into production version only after additional testing. The workflow I propose is something like the following:

1. $User comes up with an idea for an improvement of the script.
2. He applies his changes on User:$User/test/mosnum.js (a version of the script in his own userspace). Some testing is done to ensure there's no significant breakage.
3. $User applies the changes on User:Ohconfucius/master/mosnum. Any significant changes are discussed at User_talk:Ohconfucius/master/mosnum_test. This resembles the evolution of Wikipedia articles a lot.
4. Interested users (beta-testers) can import the changes from User:Ohconfucius/master/mosnum to their own userspace and test them. The results of the testing are posted to the talk page of the master script.
5. Ohconfucius imports the changes from the master script to his own userspace and tests them throughout. Lots of testing may not be needed if beta testers indicate that a lot of testing has already been done and everything works well.
6. Ohconfucius introduces the changes to the production version.

This would let more users to collaborate, the bug fixing would be easier, etc. etc. I've already collected most of your modifications until around 12 May, grouped them and added them into a single page at User:1exec1/mosnum. So if we decide that we need the master script, it probably makes sense to use that page as the initial version of the master script. I think you could just move it to your userspace to a location of your choice. 1exec1 (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

3RR

It appears that you are in violation of the three revert rule. It would have been nice if you could have engaged in the talk page discussion more instead.Homunculus (duihua) 05:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Very droll. Look who's talking! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dudley Clarke

Thanks for adding the image; unfortunately I am 80% sure from my research that it is not actually Clarke :P (It would be great if it were!). Leave it for now, but I just wanted to let you know. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• It was a surprise top me that you 'missed' it. So now I know... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You adding it today prompted me to follow up on a few leads who will be able to confirm either way :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Converting ISO8601 dates to a non-international style

I just reverted your changes to the article on APL because you changed a page full of ISO8601-style dates to DMY format. This is not a good thing, especially considering the ambiguity the ISO style tries to eliminate.

Is it your intent to change every date in WP to a national format? Can we talk about it? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 12:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)