I wanted to send some sort of holiday greeting to my friends and colleagues, but it is difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone. So I met with my solicitor yesterday, and on his advice I wish to state the following:
“
Dear friends and colleagues,
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive , gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday practised with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious / secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2011, but not without due respect for the calendar of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that our country is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:
This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/him or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. The wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
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.
Dear Ohconfucios,
I noticed you put a tag for speedy deletion on my new article. I am a new user on wikipedia. I am aware that article (created by music43lover) previously was deleted. I thought I did a lot of work in changing a content (please compare new one to older one) and worked a lot on references. I spent hours in doing this, still thinking of creating a new solid encyclopedic version about this pianist. I would rather get a motivation than discouragement.I think Dlohcierekim declined speedy deletion too, although later he changed his mind , still put a remark: "I'll take old confucious word for it, though I don't see it" . I cordially ask you to point out the phrases or sections in the article that makes you think it's a "spam" . I thought the older version had an advertisement content, therefore i created a new one. I made a Biographgy shorter with a reliable references. If List of notable concert appearances and Recording as well as some media section list makes it to think it's a advertisement I will simply remove it. I would really like to get some feedback, rather than get my very first article deleted. Allow me to fix the problems if there are pointing them out. I don't see anything promotional in a BIO section to be honest at all. I think "Dlohcierekim" would agree with me. Thanks! Sausa11 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went through and deflowered the thing. I don't think it's promotional. And I think it asserts sufficient significance to not CSD. See it's been through WP:DRV, so there's probably a history I don't know. Thoughts? Dlohcierekim 18:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohconfucios again: As you see from the article's history page there are number of people who have contributed time in this article, there were some removals, edits, cut offs made by different users. I have been communicating with some of them for asking some help in improving the article in order to get it more encyclopedic. I think it's getting better, and basically no one sees it as a promotional, in fact you might want to look at here to see some user's opinion about the article.
I will continue working on the page as time goes by. I think we made some improvements. Thanks! Sausa11 (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article could have more reliable 3rd party sources. In general as I said before it looks good to me and as Dlohcierekim mentioned earlier - I don't think it's promotional. Rexmusic (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some bugs in your script, per your request. Hopefully it is now working as you desire. By the way, it looks like you have hard-coded the date in the script. Would you like to make this automatic based on the current month and year? Hopefully I didn't make a mess of anything. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)01:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The script is now tagging once again. What it does now:
on clicking the 'British English' button in an article without any tag, the script task is performed and the tag {{EngvarB|date=December 2010}} is inserted.
on clicking the 'British (Oxford)' button in an article without any tag, the script task is performed and the tag {{EngvarOx|date=December 2010}} is inserted.
on clicking the 'British English' button repeatedly, the tag {{EngvarB|date=December 2010}} is inserted repeatedly.
on clicking the 'British (Oxford)' button repeatedly, the tag {{EngvarOx|date=December 2010}} is inserted repeatedly.
What I would like it to do:
on clicking the 'British English' button, insert the tag {{Use British English|date=December 2010}}.
on clicking the 'British English' button repeatedly, there should only be a single {{EngvarB|date=December 2010}} tag at the end of the operation.
on clicking the 'British (Oxford)' button repeatedly, there should only be a single {{EngvarOx|date=December 2010}} tag at the end of the operation.
on clicking the 'British (Oxford)' button in an article already tagged with {{EngvarB|date=Month Year}}, {{EngvarOx|date=Month Year}} or {{Use British English|date=Month Year}} or similar permutations, the sole tag is updated to {{Use British (Oxford) English|date=Newmonth Newyear}}.
on clicking the 'British English' button in an article already tagged with {{EngvarB|date=Month Year}}, {{EngvarOx|date=Month Year}} or {{Use British English|date=Month Year}}, the tag is updated to {{Use British English|date=Newmonth Newyear}}.
It doesn't matter so much if it inserts EngvarB or EngvarOx, but I would like it not to keep reinserting tags when they already exist; also it is undesirable to have (both) contradictory tags on the same article. Thanks in advance for your help. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I see what you mean. There are a couple solutions. (1) You can check for the tag before inserting one, or (2) you can remove duplicate tags, or (3) you can do both. I will think about it, and see if I can code something up. Plastikspork―Œ(talk)02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a side question: for some reason, some (and only some) of my script buttons -particularly the British English buttons (which are in their own little 'Script' section in the sidebar along with 'Custom regex'), and some others - disappear intermittently, although the script remains callable through a hook (Ohc_ENGVARplus) I placed in my vector file. I wouldn't say this is 'normal' or expected, but have you noticed similar behaviour? Could it perhaps be due to an error in the script somewhere? Ohconfucius¡digame!04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Sorry for delay in answering your comment. If I understood correctly what was said above, the script is already working as desired. Is it needed anything else?
I have a suggestion about this edit: it seems possible to simplify the code using for example {{Use British English|{{subst:DATE}}}} (see for example Template:Clarify). The result would be this. Helder 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try that on my other scripts.
I have noticed that scripts do sometimes work even when there are syntax errors, and have a query/problem OF intermittent faulty loading (above) which is leading me to suspect there may be a bug in one of my scripts. What ways do you use to test? Someone suggested I tried using Firefly to test/debug the code, but I don't find it very intuitive to use, so I didn't bother. --Ohconfucius¡digame!01:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can try Firebug for debugging. Helder 09:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, this new scripting all seems to be working fine for me. Can you please edit the Oxford script to prevent it from changing "paradise" to "paradize"? McLerristarr | Mclay107:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have done so in some table layout lists, PIA was one but its been changed since, there were a few others, it seems all have been changed to thin font now.inspector (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohconfucius. I have commented at the 3RR board. If you wish to continue editing the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative article, I encourage you to do, but perhaps in a more measured fashion? For example, try to make smaller edits? When you do sweeping changes like this,[3] even though you may be in the right to remove unsourced or poorly sourced information, it makes it more difficult for others to follow along and understand the issues. Better is to make one edit which focuses on a specific part of the article, has a clear edit summary, and is accompanied by discussion at the talkpage, and then it can be more clear what's going on. Thanks! --Elonka15:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw you were removing links to countries with AWB. I am pretty sure there is no policy that says you can't do that, and before you go off on removing every link to Americans, Spaniards and the such, I would like community discussion on that. I largely agree that linking years is a little pointless, but there is something to be said for Countries being the central hubs of Wikipedia linkwise, Sadads (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, in this edit, did you unlink South Africa but not any of the other country names in the table? It looks a bit silly to have a table of countries in which all but one of them are wikilinked to the country's article - htonl (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When tagging something Oxford English, could you provide your reasons? I'm not sure a Canadian-Native American born musician who had his big break backing a very American singer and thereafter spent most of his time in the States deserves the privilege! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 13:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending on running my script, which merely changes spelling but not the vernacular, on all Canadian articles; you must excuse the tagging. The 'Oxford' label may seem counter-intuitive at first glance, but according to my reading, Canadian English spelling is identical in most respects to Oxford English, so applying this particular WP:ENGVAR fix seemed appropriate to me. I hope this is a satisfactory explanation. your further feedback would be most welcome. --Ohconfucius¡digame!15:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Canadian English page, "Words such as realize and paralyze are usually spelled with -ize or -yze rather than -ise or -yse." Isn't that contrary to the a key Oxford distinction? And I haven't looked, but would suggest if you haven't your run this by the Wikiproject_canada. There is probably more subtlety required. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does the script deal with quotes that are spelt differently to the rest of the article? For example in the Henry Ford article there is a quote taken from his book "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black". Of course the word colour in a US based article should be color but in this case a quote should not be changed. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the use of <blockquote>quote here</blockquote>, or any one of the quotation templates such as {{quote}} or {{Cquote}}. If the simple double-quote marks ("quote here") are preferred, the {{q}} may be used instead. Protection subroutine is run on anything encased by these before the conversion subroutine is unleashed. --Ohconfucius¡digame!18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Words in a different variation of English to the rest of the page could be enclosed in the {{Lang}} template if the script was adjusted to avoid that. That would also prevent it from changing words in foreign languages. For example honor in Latin. McLerristarr | Mclay103:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up a second. You're on you way to modifying some 700+ article on German football without any discussion. Can we have a word before you get too much further along? Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What aspect in particular are you objecting to? I did not modify some "700 article on German Football", only some of those starting with the letter 'A'. In the meantime, if you are by any chance referring to the replacement of all those consecutive cascade of links [[Germany|German]] [[football (soccer)|football]] [[:Category:German football clubs|club]], with a single focussed '[[List of football clubs in Germany|German football club]]' I would refer you to WP:Linking. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you modified 700+ articles, only that you appeared to be heading that way and that I was looking for some discussion about what you were up to before you got too far along. If you're properly in control of your bot and edits I think you're well aware of what changes I'm referring to (yeah, I am by chance referring to those cascading links). While I get that that you're interested in cleaning up excessive links for the Sake of the Project (thanks for the referral), you've targeted a particular bit of Wikipedia that I'm interested/active in and I'd (reasonably) appreciate the opportunity for some input rather than having to live with some sort of narrow technical interpretation of what does or doesn't make for a good link.
Part of my objection is the targeted, non-consultative nature of the changes. After that, the link chosen as a substitute is a poor one and not one I'm too keen on seeing it applied to all of the German football wiki project articles. There's been some useful discussion back on the linking project talk page that I'm sure you're tuned into by now, so I'll see you over there at some point. Thanks. Wiggy! (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you hold up long enough please for us to have a discussion on what link would be best to use in this circumstance? Thanks. Wiggy! (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A think an edit such as this (purely for demonstration purposes) would probably go some way to allaying your concerns. However, if you have some ideas for a suitable target article which could be applied globally to the football club articles (not just Germany), I would be open to suggestions. For example, for the Italian football club articles, I used football in Italy. Cheers, --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the breather. I'm going to carry this back to the linking talk page where there are some other folks already involved. Thx. Wiggy! (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a better title, in line with the broader base of the article in Chinese, would be 'Pro-Republic of China groups in Hong Kong' or 'Pro-ROC groups in Hong Kong'. zh.WP has quite different standards (including notability and original research) to en.WP, and although I would be quite happy to make use of sources cited there to reference an article in English, I would be extremely prudent in any direct translation of anything therefrom. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ohconfucius: I am asking for your opinion if this quote from the Newspaper I have researched sounds OK to be added for Latsabidze's article:
After his Performance of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto at WUK Kulturhaus, the critic for Vienna’s main newspaper wrote that “Latsabidze is a technically brilliant pianist imbued with a spirit of greatness and genuine profundity” and added that “with a riveting intelligence and extraordinary imagination, given to everything he played, it was the kind of recital you never really forget.” I will put a reference from the newspaper and critic to support this quote. Please let me know. I will not put this in article till I get a few opinions from Wikipedia editors to be on the safe side.
Thanks! Sausa (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is very good right now, with the right tone without straying into promotion. I am unsure about this quote, like the others that have been removed. If you wish to introduce the quote, I think you will need to demonstrate how it is significant, in terms of this being some sort of personal landmark achievement or suchlike (of course on the assumption that the quote used is 'balanced'). Otherwise, it would be best to leave it out. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Not sure what you mean "balanced" thou.. I mean, I can not rewrite someone's quote which was published in newspaper. Any suggestions how would you demonstrate its significance? Well, I thought that quote cares some sort of significant meaning since it belongs to the music critic who reviewed his recital. Maybe you could let me know what did you have in mind when you said "being some sort of personal landmark achievement"? I appreciate that! Sausa (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerts get reviewed all the time, and such reviews have no great biographical significance apart from establishing his notability, which is already the case. Thus, the particular quote you have in mind ought to be for some event which carries a special significance for the artist in terms of his career. One example might be a review of a 'Royal performance'. By balance, I mean that one must not just take the 'good' critique, but anyquote should be perfunctory, and should actually summarise views of other critics (ie be representative). --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohconfucius! As I mentioned earlier I added few short quotes and referenced them appropriately. Please look at the article and see if you have any suggestions regarding those quotes. I tried my best to have those "balanced" as you advised me earlier this week. Thanks for your help! Regards Sausa (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what further input you seek. The quote seems gratuitous, as I still do not see any particular significance for the quote and its context. The edit also inserted several word links that I would unhesitatingly remove if I came across them because they are either dictionary definitions or otherwise do not deepen the understanding of the subject article. Please refer to WP:Linking. --Ohconfucius¡digame!05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you Opinion! However if you would point out what word links are subject of removal I will be happy to do that! You can go had and do that too if you have a chance. I added quote because to support the article and it's significance from reliable sources I got. I found some articles in Wikipedia about some musicians where one finds several quotes from critics. Even though article could exist without those quotes itself, still it supports a notability or gives a second opinion to the reader. Thanks to you! Sausa (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I just saw, Invertzoo did a good work. He removed all unnecessary word linking. I think now it looks better. Regards! Sausa (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Ohnconfucius: Just wanted to add and explain to your statement as you said that quote seems gratuitous - I would oppose that. I think these 2 quotes shows Latsabidze's versatility: In terms of his technical abilities and on the other hand his musical sensitivity and tone. As a professional musician (I am a violin player) I assure you that not all pianists or violinists have these qualities combined in their playing, I would say. Just wanted to let you know. If you suggest I should add or explain this in the article I would be happy to do that. Thanks! Sausa (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with the inclusion of the quotes, but I will allow you to work uninhibited on the article for the time being and refrain from making further content edits. While it may be true that other artists' bios have similar quotes, it does not mean they necessarily belong. I still feel it is gratuitous because we are not writing an article here about certain concert tours or reviewing any particular concert or recording. You have not yet demonstrated how this review of performance is 'biographic'. If the concert performance is released on disc, it may well be appropriate to include it in that article, but its inclusion in the bio really makes the article spammy, in my view.
I have however removed quite a large number of links to words I believe do not serve to deepen the understanding of the article, or other common terms; also, I feel it is pointless to link to Yehudi Menuhin in the case of the article, as there is nothing that ties the artist to Menuin but the award, which is wholly independent. In the meantime, I would refer you to WP:Linking. --Ohconfucius¡digame!01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits! 2 things: There were many "red colour" sentences which supposedly had to link such as Hannover Hochschule für Musik und Theater was in [[..]], however there was no direct link to the Hannover Hochschule because it doesn't exist on the English Wikipedia, so I had to take it away [[..]], in my view it's better. I agree with a Menuhin thing. As far as quote: Well I don't know why you are so picky about those but I see if i can be more informative by providing more biographical material. By the way there is a recording of his Beethoven Concerto performance on CD. Would that make it biographic, should I include that? I also put few more references where you put the tag of "citation needed". Sausa (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be keen on producing a quality bio of the subject... and I thought I could help by being demanding. The GA and FA process is much more demanding, and you have to jump through a lot more hoops.
Removing a link merely because it is red may be a disservice to the project and to others. So, please do not remove those red links... WP is a work in progress, and notable subjects such as that high school without articles need just that sort of red link to incite article creation. If the prizes are notable, they certainly deserve a link even though no article exists; if they are not notable, the whole mention should be scrubbed. --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you re-added the {{recent death}} template to the above-captioned article. Note that the template's instructions are clear on when it is applicable based on edit frequency. It is not currently applicable to the article, so I removed it (leaving an edit summary explaining why). If you disagree, please give more substantive reasoning if you choose to re-add the template.
Well, that was fun - we each revert three times, you folks get the "win" (not really, we all lose) since Tony chimes in. Net loss for the project, since the reader loses for lack of some useful links. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy02:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you still see it necessary to link to NYC; I replaced the generic link to Mexico with a specific link to Mexican War of Independence. If we go to the sixth degree of separation, we'd be linking everything. NYC's half a continent away, and I'd say the link is beyond a rational three degree of separation. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text makes a direct comparison to NYC; a reader may well care to compare the two. It's also hard to argue the relevance of Mexico to LA. --Ckatzchatspy02:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add that even the most red-necked American knows what NYC is... If the comparison is what they want, they would go to the source article to see what basis the comparison was on. To have to wade through the NYC article to try find that seems to be problematic/punishing enough – a general disservice to readers. --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, that is the difference in our opinions. You seem to see it as a distraction; I see it as added value. Remember, the reader is under no obligation to actually follow the link, but we do not need to make it harder for those who want to. Saying that they can always search is fine for "old hands" like us, but not anywhere near as easy for the average reader - let alone those who are not especially computer-literate. --Ckatzchatspy03:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the reader knows how to navigate to an on-line citation (2 clicks away), he/she ought to be capable of finding 'New York City' on their own, if that is what they wish to do. As I said, even the roughest redneck will know what NYC is about. --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain the reason for removing a great number of wikilinks in the List of twin towns and sister cities in Ukraine. In my opinion, the links to the countries were the only thing that had to be removed as the flags already link there. However, I don't see any valid reason for dewikifying a number of important articles (Ukraine in the abstract), a number of cities (Moscow, Paris, Rome and some others became unwikified). And removal of the links to the articles about cities and towns makes this list senseless, as the cities and towns of Ukraine are the key to the list, and reader is interested in finding an article about the city in question. Please return the links to the cities back, it's too slow to return all these links without a script as I must have to check all the disambigunations again. Thanks — NickK (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I saw from your user page, you are removing all the links unless they pass the test, so I will try to explain more:
Relevance: Is the link-target sufficiently relevant and useful to link? (See WP:LINK.) In the context of sister cities both of the cities are relevant and useful enough to link, as the purpose of the article is provide the reader the list of these couples of partner cities
Specificity: Does the link lead to the most focused appropriate target? (Search for daughter articles and sections at the proposed target article.) Unless only a city district has a twin town but not the whole city, the link to the article about the city is specific enough, and in case of city districts I linked like Berlin-Steglitz-Zehlendorf
Uniqueness: Is the linked topic reachable—directly or indirectly—through another link in the vicinity? (If so, consider not linking.) No, after your edit no links to Ukrainian cities and towns left in the article, thus they are not reachable anymore. The cities and towns in question are not well-known for readers as well, so they have to be linkes.
WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get): Is the link-target clear and obvious to the reader? Yes, in the article on sister cities user expects to find links to both, and he obviously expect to go to the article about the city by clicking the link with the name of the city
These links pass all four tests and are vital for the article, so please explain why they were removed. Again thanks and regards — NickK (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly have a point about the link to Ukraine. For the others, I'd like to point out that in a list such as the twin towns, where there are already a very large number of city links, 'London', 'Paris', 'Moscow' 'Chicago' are unlikely to be ever clicked on (as opposed to the other city links). In the case of Ukraine, the article repeatedly linked Moscow, although the standard best practice is to link a maximum of once. The links were moved on that basis. However, noting your objection, I have now reinstated the city links in the Ukraine article. You may have also noticed that, in a number of related articles, I also removed links included in section headings as being in breach of manual of style. Regards, --Ohconfucius¡digame!05:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Ohconfucius, I think you should ignore this warning; Ncmvocalist himself has been edit warring during the last 3 days or so, and not all of his edit summaries in his reverts are civil. Personally, I can't think of anything that suggests Ncmvocalist knows better than you. HeyMid (contribs) 10:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite clearly uninformed about the other incidents that Ohconfucius has been involved in. In regards to my edit-summaries, Heymid, could you please express your concerns about civility to the user in question (if you genuinely have concerns) rather than making unsubstantiated accusations on another person's talk page? Doing the latter is uncivil in itself. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"There is nothing unusual about taking a holiday (from all activity) during the Christmas/New Year period, though evidently, one needs to have a life to appreciate that." 14:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I use your MOSNUM dates script a bit (it's excellent by the way) and I've noticed that it puts a non-breaking space in height measurements. For example 172 cm changes to 172 cm. So my question is can you make your script also do that for weight measurements (eg 86 kg to 86 kg)? I have no real idea about scripts so feel free to tell me if this is a ridiculous suggestion. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the "not memorial" philosophy, but think that some of the interactions between the victims at the crime scene itself is worthwhile information. Would you mind if I added some of those details on the deceased side of the list, as I noticed you left that alone? I would have actually been inclined to edit some of the overdetailed academic histories, but I can wait until the article settles. KimChee (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's something you had in mind, but I have now reintegrated mentions of familial relationships of the victims where they existed. I'm not sure that other information such as what they were doing at the time to sustain their injuries is entirely appropriate for the sections. Maybe in prose within the 'shooting' section? --Ohconfucius¡digame!04:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, thanks for drawing my attention to the bug. I tweaked the script earlier today, and realised the bug inappropriately changed something in another article, so I fixed it. The first diff you showed must have been before I realised there was a bug. I cannot reproduce the error with that version anymore, but will be on the lookout lest it reappear. --Ohconfucius¡digame!08:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried it out with both Safari and Firefox and both worked. fyi, my long-term belief is that things like cite templates (or cite.php extensions), should always use a std format such as YYYY-MM-DD and the actual rendering vary per user pref or geolocation. Note how I tend to use ref-names such as name="Golding1911-09-19" ... and that it's convenient to copy-paste a std date into the name ;/ also, this edit tweaked your above sig; single-quotes are proper form for typeface names with spaces in them, and the class was inside the style element, which is a syntax error; I've seen that class="texhtml" ( and class names should be quoted ;) before and don't believe it really exists besides in some stray user-css. Cheers, Jack Merridew08:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the html tip! I'm not sure I put it in the doc, but the script only converts ISO dates which are within citation templates; you can opt to leave all ISO dates alone while using the script, by clicking instead on the 'Body dates to mdy' button – dmy dates within citation templates will still be converted to mdy. Then there is the 'CITE dates to ISO' function, which does what its name suggests. The reason I opted to change all to mdy in the article (as opposed to leaving the ISO) was to conform to the manual of style – there is always a problem with inconsistent use of cite templates; in addition, date-autoformatting is now deprecated, so ISO dates display as ISO dates. There is unfortunately no convention for naming refs, and the result is a hotch potch of sometimes very long and meaningless names. What to do?? :-( --Ohconfucius¡digame!09:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Visit that oldid and edit it, then select "ALL dates to dmy" and note what the script tries to do to File:Dec 2010 Queensland floods.jpg and a ref: <ref name="80KM">. It also doesn't seem to be editing the old rev, but the current one, which usually would not be a problem ;)
In fact, I use the underscore as part of the script's protection for certain date strings, but don't bother removing it (any AWB edit will normally remove it). My main concern is that the script might break anything. In neither case does it do that, thankfully. In the specific case of 'month_year', I think I might be able to refrain from using the underscore (but I need to refresh my memory as to whether the script acts on such strings)...
Also, I'm not seeing 'CITE dates to ISO' — something amiss with how I hooked this up or configured it?
Sorry, I forgot that it was a custom-made button to exploit a function already in the script. I don't encourage its use because it would potentially work in a tug of war against the operation of the main script, specifically the 'ALL dates to dmy' function (and may lead to edit-warring). If you really must have the CITE dates to ISO button, I'll build it for you. It's not complicated. --Ohconfucius¡digame!01:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall where I read this, but there's generally no need to put the website when the journal or work is already cited, unless it's a different organisation that publishes it. To all intents and purposes, citing 'work=wsj.com |newspaper=Wall Street Journal' is largely redundant. What is more, I'm not sure wsj.com ought to be italicised. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... I thought you should know anyway. As you probably know, your script converts "jan." to "Jan.", "feb." to "Feb.", etc. This is all good but the problem comes with "dec." to "Dec.". While I assume this would be positive most of the time, on some cricket articles (as you are a Brit I'll assume you know what cricket is ;) when "dec." is not referring to the month, but rather to the cricket term. Not sure if this is fixable (or even a real issue), but I thought you might like to know. (Try your script on 2009–10 Sheffield Shield season for a demo.) Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether this article was deleted or not, your below decision-making rationale is problematic:
Delete. WP is not the place for researchers to publish their original research; what's more, the list appears to be indiscriminate, as the notability of this topic has not been demonstrated. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The list was not "original research" and it was not indiscriminate. I find it incredulous that Wikipedia continues to defy its own policies on notability. Major media outlets such as CNN decide that these persons are notable, and cite the GRG and Guinness World Records as reliable sources.
The closing admin is obliged to take account of and weigh all the arguments, and I'm sure that if he didn't feel my arguments were valid, he would have discounted them, as he clearly disregarded the !vote from that poorly disguised sockpuppet. If you are in any way unhappy about the close, which you seem to be, you are invited to take the matter up at WP:DRV. FWIW, I'm a habitual AfD watcher, and bear no grudge; I am not responsible for what Tony does. I would advise you to please bury with your conspiracy theories, and assume good faith for once. --Ohconfucius¡digame!01:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly look in at the contribs page of Ohconfucius and a few other notable WPians to keep myself abreast of goings-on. There was no tag-teaming or canvassing. Tony(talk)04:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i decided not to openly broadcast my political views, so i replaced the previous image with the neutral image currently found on the talk page. I repeated the massive amount of text because it was relavant to both sections.Дунгане (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Use dmy dates
First I like to say thank you to all your help. One thing I like to say is, 3 months is a bit too long, what about one and half month?
Another thing I like to ask for your advice:User talk:Arilang1234#wp:synthesis, Дунгане had filed a couple of ANI against me, he went through all my edits, talkpage included, trying to pin me down as (1) racist (against Manchus) (2) liar. Can I file a ANI against him too? Arilang talk08:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one you should negotiate with. I still sense a great reluctance on the part of the others not to insist on a topic ban or site ban. My view is that not being rude to others and not edit warring are merely behaviours expected of all editors, and asking that you adhered to these a bit more strictly than others for a three month period will hopefully ingrain what is only good practice. There is certainly nothing stopping you from opening an ANI against Dungan (Дунгане), but I feel that it would not be well received. Whatever the rights or wrongs of his actions are better forgotten for the sake of you more rapid rehabilitation in the eyes of the others who have complained against you. As you guys seem to bring out the pyrotechnics in each other, I would further advise you to avoid interacting with Dungan (and PCPP) if at all possible. Dungan may have been direct in his communication, but I seriously don't see much to indicate that his actions are 'personal'; that he has clearly come out against a topic ban for you indicates that he bears no malice. Your keeping your nose clean, and making a serious effort to learn to abide by WP policies and guidelines will be thanks enough. --Ohconfucius¡digame!08:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your advice, I shall send PCPP and Dungan a personal "thank you" for against a topic ban on me. There is one more thing I would like you to help me, like the message I left on Moonridengirl's talkpage, I find it difficult to locate my old edits(copyvios or not), like those of 2008, 2009. Could you give a bit of advice? Arilang talk09:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like to talk to you regarding Moonriddengirl's comment:" Translation needs to be as thorough in rewriting as any paraphrase; it can't cross the line into Wikipedia:Close paraphrase". In this case, many of my Chinese/English translation edits(based on Chinese source) would have to undergo rewriting in order to avoid copyvio issue? Arilang talk05:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky one, that. I never previously thought translations could give rise to that problem, but the experts seem to think differently... Each instance would need to be examined carefully --Ohconfucius¡digame!07:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder (based on what another user said on ANI), but when you're going through the CCI list, be sure to checkmark a copyvio even if the copyvio has been removed. This way an admin can revdelete the copyright violations from the history. Also, I highly appreciate your help in this! With your guidance, I'm hopeful that Arilang can improve. :) --hkr(talk)11:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the reflexive "quotefarm" reaction may have unanticipated consequences. It may have caused you to overlook an elephant in the room. Please reconsider -- not that you were wrong, rather that you were missing something consequential; and see here and here.
Please re-evaluate whether your perspective needed to be wider in this instance. In other words, please re-think this over the next couple of days. --Tenmei (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there was a significant lens or filter here through which you construed this minor concern?
Aha, thanks for refreshing my memory! Alas, you are correct that the removal of the quotes was spurred by concerns over copyvio – it was what I was working on at the time. However, although I did put a copyright notice on that article's talk page (but later removed after I saw the thread above), the direct reason I cited was that it was a quotefarm, and I stand by that judgement. They may be potentially useful quotes to use in the article, but I don't see how all of it is necessarily biographic – particularly the paragraph about Marco Polo. However, integrating the quotes will take more than a 'drive-by' effort. Once I have gone through the Arilang copyvios, I will come back to the article to see how to work those quotes into the article in a biographical manner. --Ohconfucius¡digame!01:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i asked several admins to work on it but it hasn't been worked on in a month, and it doesn't seem like anyone is going to check it in the near future.Дунгане (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already noted the existence of your case. I guess there must be a huge backlog. I am by no means complete with the Arilang case, and don't know how much longer it will take me. I am just first picking off the low-hanging fruit. ;-) I will try and swing by, but don't hesitate to ping me again if I haven't move on it in a month. Cheers, --Ohconfucius¡digame!01:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert again and expect to be blocked. I warned you before, and I'm warning you again; I'm not going to tolerate this turning into a spectacle just because you have a history of edit-warring. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you see that you made a circular link. Now the article points to a itself. Basically the article is deleted. Also the vote should have continued elsewhere.
That is one of very few article that has both the location and historical event combined in one. AND that should be fixed. See how zh:保留舊中環天星碼頭事件 the historical event and the pier are two different things. The format should be this way for consistency. Benjwong (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not obliged to follow what they do in zh.WP. They have different rules governing content and different policies and guidelines to us. Things that are considered notable there are often deleted or merged here. --Ohconfucius¡digame!05:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, split the HSRL article again. I'll resurrect the discussion about a merger. I would appreciate it if you would leave the Pier article as it is. --Ohconfucius¡digame!05:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't I look into the village protest and see if that can be avoided as another article then. It might take a few days. In the meantime I'll split HSRL. Benjwong (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:ClipBoard-1.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for the note re: Tung Lin Kok Yuen. If that's indeed the case feel free to edit away! I don't think the students who edited it were mine, though they might have been HKU students for another class who was also using Wikipedia as a classroom assignment. -- Fuzheado | Talk00:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think it will be difficult as most sources from Chinese documents, as you may aware, as an Euro-Chinese family, the names of the family member are quite different between Chinese and English, however, if have time, will try.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossroads Mall (Florida) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to your date script, it appears you have to make a manual update each month to ensure a current dating for applying the dmy/mdy tags. Perhaps code such as this will allow this to be automagically updated (this example would be used within function Ohc_dates_to_dmy()) ...
// current month-year
var currentDate = new Date();
var currmonth = currentDate.getMonth();
var curryear = currentDate.getFullYear();
var myMonths = new Array("January", "February", "March", "April", "May", "June", "July", "August", "September", "October", "November", "December");
var curryyyymm = myMonths[currmonth] + ' ' + curryear;
// insert 'dmy' template
txt.value=txt.value.replace(/{{(use (dmy|mdy) dates|dmy|mdy)(\|[^}]*)?}}/gi, '{{Use dmy dates|date='+curryyyymm+'}}');
var rxpdd = new RegExp("{{Use dmy dates\\|date="+curryyyymm+"}}", "gi");
var dflagfound = txt.value.search(rxpdd);
if (dflagfound == -1)
{
txt.value='{{Use dmy dates|date='+curryyyymm+'}}\r\n'+txt.value;
}
The idea is to build the month/year string, create a regular expression from the string, then apply it to the text body as the hard-coded month string in your script currently does. These Jscript code lines are provided as-is, no warranties, do not taunt Happy Fun Ball, etc. but hope this might help save a bit of drudgery each month. Dl2000 (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you and Ncmvocalist cannot stop edit-warring on the arbitration report every week and bickering at each other in edit summaries, I am going to ask the editors to reassign the page away from both of you. This situation is becoming embarrassing for everyone. I know that you are only one of the two people involved, but this needs to stop. I hope that it can. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it should not be a false hope; collaborating productively is within both editors, and the Arb Report needs more than one regular editor as a practicality. Tony(talk)03:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't at all saying I will not try, or that I surrender. I have often noticed the positive aspects the other party brings, and I just hope he also sees that his approach isn't the only approach. --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost: Conflict of interest, changes after publication, and personal templates
Hi Ohconfucius, thanks for your continuing engagement for the Signpost's Arbitration report. However, I had noticed with concern that in this issue you wrote about your own motion (to lift sanctions that the Arbcom had imposed against you for, among other things, edit-warring), despite the serious problems that we had in that situation in the past (I remind you of my concluding remark in November, which might have been too optimistic). I assumed that you strived to write this part in a neutral and factual way, but it should be clear that this kind of constellation is still considered quite problematic in almost all interpretations of journalistic ethics, and does not enhance the Signpost's reputation. It would have been a very good idea to ask someone else to cover this, or at least announce your conflict of interest in - say - the Newsroom and ask others to review what you wrote. If the coverage had remained unchallenged and unchanged by others, we might have moved on, but now we find you making significant changes more than three hours after publication to precisely this section[5]. I'd also like to remind you what I said in November about making significant changes to Signpost stories shortly before, or after publication. (Yes, the last part of course also applies to Ncm, and I am telling him as well.)
I understand the desire to include the update on the February 8th motion, but considering that this issue is dated February 7th and was published on February 7th, it is well justified to postpone this news to the upcoming issue.
To avoid misunderstadings about [6]: I do not want to prevent innovations in the graphical design of the Arbcom report and I welcome a discussion about such icons at WT:POST. However, the standard Signpost layout template should be used, if only just for the reason that it contains quite a lot of complicated code (whose source, I'd like to note, should be attributed when copying) - e.g. the sharing tools - that may need to be maintained and updated in a central place. Also, christening a template after yourself is not a good way to dispel possible concerns about ownership.
Thanks for your message on my talk page, it seems they crossed each other ;)
You can find out whether the issue has already been published simply by going to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. The exact publication time can be seen here.
I already posted to your talk page - a certain ec/cross-posting, judging from the length of your message. I take your point about writing about my own case... Although I would not have trusted his writing about me in an objective fashion, I was nevertheless waiting for vocalist to rear his ugly head, which he only did at the very last minute this week - for reasons that will only be clear to himself (as the Arbitration Report seems to represent 80%+ of his weekly output on WP), and then to edit war with me. For future reference, not that it will ever happen again... isn't it already obvious by the byline that I'm writing about myself, and what further disclosures would be necessary? --Ohconfucius¡digame!04:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only about disclosing the COI, but also about avoiding or mitigating it.
About [7]: Note that the bot delivery may have some delay (the entire bot run takes up to 2h, and is started only after the actual publication).
Testing in one's userspace first is indeed a good idea, but Template:Ohconfucius-Signpost-article-start is in the main template namespace (you could have considered something like User:Ohconfucius/Signpost-article-start instead - note that it can still be transcluded, even without the "Template:..."), and the Signpost story was in the project namespace.
I reviewed the text about Ohconfucius and, indeed, Lightmouse, and found it to be neutral in a journalistic sense. I agree it should have been raised at the newsroom. Tony(talk)05:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles look like the kind of writing found on dust jackets - brief, overuse of quotes, and slightly promotional in tone. I will have a think about what suggestions I could bring. In the meantime, it might be of interest of you to look at how I constructed another book article: The Critical Moment – Li Peng Diaries --Ohconfucius¡digame!16:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment and suggestion. Please have a look at:User:Arilang1234/Draft/Chiang Kai-shek Diaries, I think "Chiang Kai-shek Diaries" would make a very good wiki. Would like to say Thank You to you one more time for your help in fixing my copyvio articles. Looks like more than 50% of the articles had been cleared? Arilang talk00:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy 18 of the Date delinking case, which limits Ohconfucius (talk·contribs) to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."
Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk·contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group."
Found a link that supposedly pointed a SCMP archive and realised it doesn't work anymore. Wikiblame pointed me to this edit which you made, so I thought it'd be a nice idea to tell you about this. I've kept the citation but removed the link. --Deryck C.16:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the perennial problem with linkrot... I'm afraid back in 2007, I did rely on those archives for a number of articles. I am well aware that hku closed off its news archives to the public a couple of years back, and I had to stop using them for that reason. I never went to remove the dead links. Today, the SCMP electronic archives only go back to 1993. Fortunately, the SCMP is a print journal with publication dates and hard copy, and library copies are still available. These days, I still refer to the SCMP, but don't bother with the urls any more because it's a subscription site. --Ohconfucius¡digame!01:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions at Senkaku Islands dispute are helpful to me. In other words, your reasoning helps me to see new ways to refine my own thinking.
The current state of this article is like a Gordian Knot. Your diffs seem to isolate one strand, and then your analysis encourages me to try to join you in untangling that one aspect of a larger problem.
The feedback is much appreciated. I won't get involved in the article, but will pop in to the talk page from time to time. I feel that whilst it is important not to lose sight of the big picture, it can cloud elements that can be easily dealt with if we were not obsessed with it – small problems are more easily dealt with. Senkaku is such a contentious area that requires constant flow of fresh perspectives, I think quite a few of the involved editors are so entrenched and feel so embattled that they would benefit from a spell away from the article. --Ohconfucius¡digame!01:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the discussion has gone circular again. Since User:Qwyrxian volunteered to deal with the tendentious editing single-handedly, I think the two of us can work out the details of the solution amongst ourselves for now. Once User:Qwyrxian resolves the mess, we can introduce the hypothetical solution to the crowd.
Here's a few points of interest:
The Remin Ribao article claims Senkaku Islands is part of Ryukyu Islands (The correct interpretation)
The existing text says the Remin Ribao article claims Senkaku Islands is part of Japan (The incorrect interpretation)
A compromise was proposed such that the existing text will be changed so that the opinion will be attributed to the secondary sources that made the incorrect interpretation
There's a question of whether or not to also mention how this incorrect interpretation is drawn. Most of the secondary sources equated Ryukyu Islands to the Okinawa Prefecture and used that as the basis of reason.
The foreign affairs secondary source stated the Remin Ribao article is about a protest against U.S. occupation of Ryukyu Islands. It cited the correct interpretation and listed it as a supporting argument of Japanese sovereignty but did not equate the Ryukyu Islands to the Okinawa Prefecture. While the argument itself is pretty weak, it is an odd-ball out of the bunch. So we might need to think a bit on how to fit this reference in
This new sub-thread is basically another summary of our task. Again, it's probably best to ignore others for now and focus on this (if you are interested, that is). If you find it to be too long, just read my tiny reply to User:Qwyrxian's wall of text. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I just wrote something to point you two there. Sorry about the wall--it was designed to hammer home the point that the sentence cannot stand as written now (it's actually a false sentence). I'll go look at your reply. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's now very popular to display such a character upside down at new year for its significance... when upright, 福 (pinyin='fu') represents 'prosperity'; when 福 is turned on its head, it becomes upside-down-'fu', or 福倒 (pinyin='fú dǎo'),. This sounds phonetically similar to 福到(pinyin='fú dào'), meaning to usher in prosperity. (BTW, I'm not 100% sure of the diacritics I used)--Ohconfucius¡digame!16:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've noticed that (recently?) you've changed your MOSNUM scripts to also fix dashes. For example changing -- to – is always a good change in the text of an article, but when it changes <!-- to <!– it wrecks the commented out thing (see this edit). I know I used another script in the one edit, but it was your script that changed the commented part of the persondata, which messed up the persondata template. To see what happened run any of your MOSNUM scripts on Sam Mitchell (footballer). Hope this can be easily fixed and I appreciate all the work you're doing on these scripts. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thanks for the quick reply and fix. I forgot to mention that at the end of comment out thing it's still changing --> to –>. It would be much appreciated if this could also be fixed. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, another editor has nominated Blair for GA. I'm willing to take the review on, but it'll be a a pretty intense task, so I'm not going to waste my time if nobody knows the subject and the article well enough to address the inevitable concerns and the nominator doesn't appear to be a significant contributor. Hence my visit to your talk page! I noticed your name quite high up on the list of most prolific contributors and wondered if you were willing and able to help out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi, I think you are looking in the wrong place Harry...
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.
Thank you McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
