User talk:Ohconfucius/archive15

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.

New intro in FG-verse[edit]

I know you said that you wanted to distance yourself from the subject for a while, but I have just comprehensively re-written a new intro on Falun Gong. If you have a bit of time please just have one quick look to copyedit and proofread to make sure I have everything right. Thanks! Colipon+(Talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I really need to stay away for a while longer, if you don't mind. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB links[edit]

Please avoid converting direct links (such as Kent County, Rhode Island) into links to disambiguation pages (such as Kent County). Instead, consider piping the link (as [[Kent County, Rhode Island|Kent County]]) to achieve the desired result without rendering the link less useful. Oddly, you're the second experienced editor this week to make this specific edit to the WLKW article. - Dravecky (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. It was my mistake, my eyes were blurred. ;-) You will have noticed that the other similar links I changed to [[City, State]]. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Parker and year links[edit]

I thought you and the others agreed to leave the status quo as-is until the discussion was decided?

Further, your "final warning" is very flawed and reflective of you, not me. I did NOT revert edits three times in a 24-hour period, so that is a false charge. Further, it is a conflict of interest for you to be both involved in the matter as a point of discussion AND also as a point of enforcing "penalties." In short, it's like trying to win a chess game by knocking the pieces off the board. Cyber-bullying and threats to block are NOT productive and NOT good arguments, either. Far from a WIKI-LAWYERING accusation, it seemed an acceptable and reasonable compromise to link the sentence in the Jiroemon Kimura article directly to the year 1897, rather than his year-of-birth/year-of-death listing at the top. However, it seems to me that you are more interested in "winning" than being fair, more interested in bullying than being reasonable. As such, I will take this matter to higher authorities.Ryoung122 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you do that. I don't have any conflict of interest. I'm just interested in ensuring style guidelines are enforced - which is either obligatory or recommended practice. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RYoung122's actions in this sorry mess have been deplorable. He edited against community consensus; he deleted guidelines because they didn't suit him (that's right RYoung122: why delete parts of the guideline if you really believed you were editing within them?); he reverted bot edits (bots that he knew full-well were sanctioned, and would only run if they arrose from community consensus); he warred over those edits; he accused people of canvassing, but did exactly the same thing; he shouted at people via his edits; he accused editors of cabal-like activity; etc. Please—bring on scrutiny of this atrocious episode. HWV258. 03:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

I hearby trout you for using a font similar to Comic Sans in your signature. That is all. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! I didn't realise it was a troutable offence! I copied your shadow, but needed to differentiate in view of the shadow's increasing popularity with other editors. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I suppose if you have an arguable reason for this offence I'll have to let it slide. Still, be careful in your search for individuality...you may find it slides even *further* away! ;D — Huntster (t @ c) 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The quest for individuality via a signature that is "different" is disturbing. HWV258. 04:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure that what you do marks you out, but it doesn't stop corporations spending millions each year on logos and corporate imaging. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was just having a shot at myself for spending so long to find a way to get the dot after my username to blink (although it doesn't blink in all browsers). HWV258. 04:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's very subtle and easily missed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Unlike me. HWV258. 04:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Confucius, why are you talking to yourself? — Huntster (t @ c) 05:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Must be my age. You can trout me once more if you catch me doing it again. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

SilkTork *^YES! 10:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong[edit]

Hello ! I have nominated this article : Hong Kong for FAR. Can you give your opinion here : Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive2. Thanks. Toutvientapoint (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akmal Shaikh[edit]

Hi. I have put the GA Review on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues detailed on Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1 to be addressed. Any questions please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA[edit]

Hi Ohconfucius,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

Hi, I've just dropped you a mail. --JN 466 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed[edit]

Hey Ohconfucius, could be you please have a look at the articles 50 Cent Party and Propaganda in the People's Republic of China which I think has severe NPOV problem. Thanks! --Defender of torch (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Ordinarily, I'd take on the invitation. However, I noticed that User:Dilip rajeev has been active at both of these. It is very possible, to my mind, that he may be at least partly responsible for the WP:NPOV issues. However, there is a long history of conflict between us, and any contact with him generates unnecessary stress for me. I'll see what I can do. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a request[edit]

Some time ago you came across an article that you had questions about. Rather than pose those quetions on its talk page, or on the talk page(s) of the contributors who had worked on that article you nominated it for deletion.

You did not inform the contributor who started the article. So they did not have an opportunity to respond to your questions. While the deletion policies highly recommend nominators observe the courtesy of leaving a heads-up on talk page(s) of the individual who started or uploaded, and on those of other major contributors, it is not strictly required.

The way I see it we all have a limited store of good faith. I for one appreciate it when other contributors do observe the courtesies our policies recommend, as it avoids unnecessarily draining my limited store of good faith.

It was a long time ago -- maybe you do leave courtesy heads-ups on other contributor's talk page now. But, if you don't, is there any chance you would consider doing so in future?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking on Miley Cyrus[edit]

I disagree with many of your removals, so I'm going to re-add a few of them (not all). For example, you removed all internal links to pop music. You removed the only link to Toronto. I'm fine with the more obvious ones, like certain instruments, etc. "Overlinking" can be defined as both "too many links in an article" and "more than one internal link". Let me know if you think I'm absolutely in the wrong. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I note that you objected to 'many' of the links I removed, but you home in on two in particular. The article is already quite densely linked with many which are important and highly germane to the article. I felt that the links I removed were actually distractive. FYI, the links I removed were: Singer, actress, author, songwriter, musician, model, Vocals, guitar, piano, Toronto, Canada, English language, London, United States of America, Fox News, United Kingdom, Australia, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The New York Times, YouTube, New York City. I felt that, in the context of this article, all of these terms are common, banal and/or not terribly germane to the subject, and where a reader would have little objection to doing a search for him/herself. In the highly unlikely event that a person arriving at the article would not know what the term 'pop music' meant, I suppose I would apologise and ask him/her kindly where he/she has been for the last half century. As for the link to Toronto, where her family lived only briefly, most would know where it was, thus I do not believe it is of any importance to the article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for explaining your decision. I can see the Toronto explanation perfectly and I'll agree with you, especially in light of her not having really lived there. I do disagree with not linking pop music, though. Although it's not standard or required, there seems to be a consistency of keeping the genres listed in an album's infobox linked. It's not a matter of where the reader has been for the last half century, this is an unfair argument for anything. It's a matter of definition. I'll attest to the fact that there are so many genres, it's almost disgusting, but people love making them up to fit the latest trend. But even the larger, "blanket" genres should be easily accessible with a click of a button, and this is definitely an advantage to having an online encyclopedia. In this case, the genre is far more relevant to the artist and the article than many of the links you'd removed earlier. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, but I would add I would argue against linking rock music, but not the sub-genres, such as gothic, indie, punk, grunge...
By the same token, link to Baroque pop, Bubblegum pop, Dance-pop , Electropop, Europop, Indie pop, Operatic pop, Power pop, Sophisti-pop, Space age pop, Sunshine pop, Teen pop, Country pop, Disco, Dream pop, Jangle pop, Pop punk, Pop rap, Pop rock, Psychedelic pop, Technopop, Urban pop, by all means, but I feel that Pop music is sufficiently wide to cover almost all known musical genres, and is utterly banal these days, so it makes little sense to link to it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in addition to the definition of pop music, there's the history, and obviously these main genres have large articles devoted to them that should be connected with their respective music. Banality can't be helped. If the genre is listed, and in the Miley article, it's the only genre listed, probably precisely because it covers the whole gamut of her sub-genres, then it should be internally linked at least once. For specific songs' articles that are categorized into specific sub-genres, then I can see why pop shouldn't be linked or even listed—the sub-genre does it for you. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Hobbit / LotR[edit]

These pages use British English with Oxford spelling and therefore prefer -ize to -ise. Thu (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you learn something new every day! I was taught British always spell '~ise' and not '~ize'. It's the Yanks who always use '~ize'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me, is the Oxford spelling 'honorable' or 'honourable'; 'favorable' or 'favourable'; 'amorous' or 'amourous'? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a paper dictionary to hand but my spelling checker reckons 'honourable', 'favourable' & 'amorous' (which look right to me). Thu (talk)

Ta! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling in Diesel and wire[edit]

From a quick look, it appears that you have changed uniformly American spelling in the Diesel and wire articles to uniformly British spelling. This is contrary to WP:RETAIN. Can you explain your thinking? Thanks Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not acting unilaterally, but based on the {{British English}} tags placed on the talk page of the articles concerned. The mixed spelling is quite common, so I thought nothing of it and just maade them uniform. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that tag. Nor had I noticed any "mixed spelling"--can you cite an example? It would seem to me that the tag was wrong--otherwise your edits would not have been needed. I'll ask the editor who added that tag. Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on diesel engine was added by an anonymous user. A check of the spelling on that date shows more ize than ise. So it would seem that there's no basis for the tag. I'd revert both the tag and your edits, but that looks like a lot of work, since there were many other good edits mixed in, and it's not an issue of substance. Maybe I'll revert the tag and add a note. Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked an early version and it did in fact start in British. So that one should remain British.Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to investigate. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRC Barnstar[edit]

We're getting a little confused about your barnstar, which you put on WP:*. We're currently discussing it in WT:WPWPA, so if you don't mind could you sort things out there? Thanks. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you've seen this message? I've put up this message a while ago, but you have not yet commented. I understand that you may be very busy, so this is just a reminder. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/User on PCPP[edit]

Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of PCPP (talk · contribs).--Asdfg12345 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to sign it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks. --Asdfg12345 01:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun[edit]

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ching Hai[edit]

Hello. You may be interested in taking a look at that page and assessing how it may be improved. I have already tampered with it slightly. Just in case you are interested in these Chinese religious groups. I don't believe there are any trolls hiding under the bridge over there. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She seems like some sort of gaudy fashion designer who styles herself as a religious guru. Add to that the interesting dimension of influence peddling and corruption. Seems to be nothing all that insidious in terms of mind-control and manipulation, yet there are still those who would refer to her as a 'cult leader'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI on Dilip rajeev[edit]

Note that I've made an outline of Dilip's recent editing behavior here.--PCPP (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thx :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've voted. You probably should have taken him to AE to have the FLG probation remedies applied. Anyway, we'll see how this one goes. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip has now attempted to revert the current Persecution of Falun Gong article into one from July 2009. -_- --PCPP (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting of football clubs[edit]

Hello. In tables in Aston Villa F.C., you've changed align=center to align=centre. The table markup requires the US spelling to work properly: see Aston Villa F.C.#Notable managers, where the numeric columns are now left-aligned rather than centred. Please could you change them back, and anywhere else where you may have done the same. thanks,Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your post[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In reply to your recent post, you should note that false warnings are frowned upon, and I'd also add that you are a fine one to speak of "stalking" when you seem to appear on pages shortly after Tony does in an apparent effort to "tag-team" him. One of the reasons why it is important to research events rather than just leap in with fake, unsubstantiated "warnings" is that it helps to avoid posts that make you look foolish. Even the most cursory of examination of my contributions list - freely and easily accessible through my signature in addition to the usual methods - would demonstrate thousands upon thousands of edits to television-related articles, especially to the main articles for individual series. It is ludicrous to toss around false accusations of "stalking" when Tony1's actions tonight caused my watchlist to light up like a Christmas tree. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was it a "false warning"??? You were disagreeing with Tony about delinking News networks, and the next thing I know, you are making wholescale reverts of otherwise productive edits which, admittedly, included some delinked networks. You then have the nerve to come here and accuse me of tag-teaming? Merry Christmas! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When one has hundreds of television articles on one's watchlist, and in one evening dozens of those articles surface with similar edits, it does draw one's eyes. Add to that that I had already explained the problem to Tony, and he had replied that h was going to address the problem. Next thing I know, the same issue is being repeated with the script. I was quite clear in explaining the issue, in explaining why I reverted (it being much faster to reapply a corrected script than to manually correct the problem delinkings), and to offer to help. When you show up and make accusations of "stalking", I have to take issue with it. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Speedy deletion declined: Franke's widefield pinhole camera[edit]

Hello Ohconfucius. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Franke's widefield pinhole camera, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: type of camera not person band or organisation. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However I have no objection to your prod of it. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bureaucranilly[edit]

so now you need to inform dilip of the new ANI-thread ... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Colipon+(Talk) 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would just be so much easier, right? --Asdfg12345 00:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This, and a for him to recant his belief in Falun Gong, would be infinitely better. ;-) (-; Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Please have a look at this, might be interesting: http://club.kdnet.net/newbbs/dispbbs.asp?boardid=1&star=9&replyid=5817667&id=3002628&skin=0&page=1

文章提交者：monachus 加帖在猫眼看人【凯迪网络】 http://www.kdnet.net

汉语的缺陷及给中国文化的影响早有定论，为民族自尊的原因而只在学术界小范围内讨论。

1 语言，语法不精确，导致不能建立有清晰内涵和外延界定的抽象概念。而概念的缺乏直接干扰中国文化逻辑学的产生。自然也就没有逻辑思维了。

2 象形文字没有进一步转为字母化的符号体系。缺乏丰富的符号体系来表征抽象概念，符号工具的缺乏使得中国古代数学家已经非常接近微积分，而最终无法创造微积分的原因，符号对概念的抽象替代-“算符”。也是现代量子力学的基石。

3 长期接触图像化的象形文字，使中国人的大脑长于形象思维，弱于抽象思维。长于艺术，文学，人际关系，弱于自然科学，法律。

文章提交者：monachus 加帖在猫眼看人【凯迪网络】 http://www.kdnet.net

符号不仅可以代表概念，还可以代表概念之间由逻辑关系而形成的一个相对固定的结合体，量子力学中的算符就起这种功能

丰富的符号体系造就现代科学。

象形文字的汉字让中国人无法形成符号体系。

另外，音形不联系的汉字难学难记，没有三年艰苦的学习难以读书看报，中国的文盲数量比例非常高。

而表音体系能说即能读，儿童可以更早的接触文字信息，智力开发也更早。

汉字难学，使得儿童接触同样数量的文字信息比表音文字教育体系下的儿童有1-2年的迟滞，而这1-2年的迟滞对智力发育带来的危害非常大。 Arilang ^talk 06:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Akmal Shaikh on hold[edit]

The GA review of the Akmal Shaikh article has been on hold for over 30 days. It is near to being passed, but the Akmal_Shaikh#Reaction section needs editing to reduce the amount of direct quotation as per Wikipedia:Quotations, and also to be trimmed in general to meet GA criteria 3(b): "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Any assistance in this matter would be appreciated. SilkTork *^YES! 10:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Akmal Shaikh to good article status.

I have an English / French questions[edit]

TONY recommend that I contact you regarding this question... Would you mind looking at a thread I started at the medicine portal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Are_these_terms_synonymous.3F? I would love your feedback there, if you have time? ---kilbad (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Please have a look and give some comments:User:Arilang1234/Comparison between written English and written Chinese Draft Arilang ^talk 06:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West End theatre[edit]

Hey, Im sure your intentions were correct but your recent editing to the table over at West End theatre messed up the way the closing dates were listed due when sorted chronologically. The numerical dates are left there purely for coding reasons so that the table displays correctly when they are sorted. Regards.Mark E (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image size[edit]

Hi. You made two images on the Hasan page smaller than the standard 180, without a rationale for diverging from the standard. If anything, the full body one should be larger, and I see no reason for either to be smaller than the MOS standard.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with them both being 165 or 170. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the Awlaki image was excessively prominent - it was larger than all the other images on the page. It defaulted to 220px because no file size was chosen. The Hasan was set at the marginally lower 175px. Of course, the 220px default thumbnail image size was quite rightly increased from the previous width of 180px, but that size was meant as an optional setting, and for horizontal (not vertical) images. The Awlaki image, using the same ratio as the default, should have been 165px; the Hasan image, 175px. I just elected for convenience sake to make them both 150px. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Shaoguan incident[edit]

The article Shaoguan incident you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Shaoguan incident for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error[edit]

Hi. On 29 Mar, 01.55, when you edited Gao Zhisheng, you added a ref <ref name=nyt_surfaces/> that caused a cite error. Could you check it? Cossaxx (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for notifying. now fixed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		WikiProject Hong Kong Award
		Thanks for making that article about the five constituencies referendum a great one. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thank you. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urumchi riots FAC[edit]

Hey Ohconfucius, thanks for nominating this article for FAC again! I have been thinking of doing it soon too, but one thing I think I forgot to mention on the talk page is that Moni3 has volunteered to do a copyedit and I was waiting until that before nominating. (But, come to think of it, I was just now starting to think about nudging her about that, since it's been a while since we discussed it, and perhaps a new FAC is a good way to nudge ;) )

rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake, again[edit]

New article 2010 China earthquake? Arilang ^talk 03:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably: 7.9, killing 500+. The only thing against is that it's in a remote area, and as such is likely to have a minor impact. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Twitter accounts to watch:

Arilang ^talk 09:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I: Abuse of sysop tools, and failure to follow consensus – Causa sui[edit]

Hello. This is to let you know that there is now a discussion at AN/I regarding an issue that you commented on here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, was the point of that?[edit]

OC, I'm confused. I'd expect that sort of nonsense from certain other parties, but at least you had seemed a bit more reasonable. How was your last post at the links page supposed to contribute to a positive discussion? --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. I was sincerely trying to talk to you. I stated my rationale to you as best I could, through several posts, but your responses seemed to continually indicate that I have been talking past you all this time. It left me at a considerable loss for words, wondering in what manner you expected me to respond to you... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars[edit]

I'm hardly surprised to see that you have recently had an altercation with Kwamikagami. I have been plagued with his personal attacks and incivility for months on various RfCs, article talk, and user talk pages. I generally take the other course and remain almost unctuously polite - which seems to incite even more of his abuse. I've therefore been seriously considering escalating a complaint (no easy decision) about his behaviour which is absolutely inappropriate for a sysop, but firstly I'm not sure how to do this, secondly, I would need support from a whole lot more people he has insulted, and thirdly, I am very suspicious that he canvasses off-Wiki support for his weak, strawman arguments, systematic disruptive editing, and revert wars.--Kudpung (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I object to his corrupt, and abusive use of Admin powers. I don't know about off-wiki canvassing, but I believe he has his own little gang. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a confusing person![edit]

You can't put up with on more little admin? :( Btw, didn't I do a GA review for you? You're very familiar but I can't quite place it... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous little argument I've seen often being used for no good reason. Strange thing is that your RfA somehow seemed naked without it. ;-) BTW, this was the GA you review where I was one of the main editors. Have a good day. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course! The best hour of telly I've seen in a long time! All the best, ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

And how exactly did you learn of my interest?

But in fact, I followed a link from WT:NOR, which I am as entitled to do as any other editor. I believe my restriction has lapsed in any case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Words to watch is one of the style guidelines which is on my watchlist. And then, you know how transparent the metawiki software is... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

You received a lot of flak for it, some of it from me; I also say that the unattributed quote from the WP should not have gone in, but two wrongs don't make it right. For an Admin to abuse his/her powers in the way you did was wrong, and you deserved that flak, IMHO. Having said all that, I take my hat off to you for the way you remained unflappable during the whole affair. You never made angry outbursts or descended into counter-accusations and personal attacks as a result of heavy bombardment. That is admirable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame!06:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it was a good practice for my Zen. I lost my cool a little bit on Epeefleche (talk · contribs)'s talk page when he started using my real name, but I think I held it together pretty well overall. FWIW I think Epeefleche succeeded in framing the debate as if it were over a single edit, whereas it was actually over a pattern of behavior and several much more serious BLP problems than whether an unattributed quote should be in the article. Maybe I should have based my defense on clarifying that rather than policy. Anywho, it's over now (unless he's secretly working on an Arbcom case) and I'm back to editing the articles. Cheers, --causa sui (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings[edit]

For that merge, that is exactly what I am talking about. The killer offed himself the same day and it just makes guesses at his past and also talks about his son (which I can see as a BLP issue, but that is way beyond the point). While it was reported a lot, it mostly dealt with how security was increased during the games (which I believe there is an article about that) and how rare for Americans to be stabbed in China in broad daylight. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Kwami[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you are interested in starting a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation (WP:RFC/U:Admin) on Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) , seeing as Kwami again unilaterally moved the Cantonese article after a WP:RM without any notice or reason, on the 23rd, setting off another revert.

I myself cannot, since I am an IP user and do not have page creation rights.

I have also asked user:Colipon on this issue.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you create an account, so you can create pages. There are no real disadvantages to doing so. I'm sorry, I am only prepared to comment. I've been in the middle of some pretty major drama in April, so I need some peaceful time right now. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about[edit]

How about move some info from your recent edits to 2010 March for universal suffrage. Benjwong (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection in principle, except I would question having such an article. As nothing is likely to ever come about as a result of it, and its scale is rather diminished, it is destined to remain a stub forever. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ürümchi riots[edit]

Would you care to comment on my suggestion at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#OhConfucius' edit? Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats & file links[edit]

Hi, Ohconfucius. In this edit, you changed an image link because it contained an ISO-8601 date, resulting in a broken image. Please show some care when you change date formats. Regards, --Kjetil_r 12:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School stabbings[edit]

Hi Ohc, your opinion would be appreciated here. Colipon+(Talk) 03:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engvar script[edit]

Hey there. I'll be testing out the script as you requested. If you don't mind, I'll leave my suggestions here as they come to me:

Prevent script from touching file names and quotations Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dang and blast! I made some changes but seem to have introduced a bug. The complicated bit was done, and I messed up on the easy bit. I'll get there in the end... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now fixed the problem. Please reload your cache to try the latest version of the script. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but it's still altering the title of a source in citation templates; for example, if you run the script over Victoria Cross, it will change "artifact" in ref 88 to "artefact". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I put in what you suggested, but only what you suggested. ;-) Hopefully, I've fixed the outstanding issues now that categories, refs and blockquotes are no longer affected. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!!

What do you think of a change like this? Helder (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews tool[edit]

Did the pageviews tool disappear overnight? Do you have any idea what happened? Colipon+(Talk) 00:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ines Thomas Almeida | Notability[edit]

Hello Ohconfucius, I just added some external references to the page, which confirm that she won a significant award. I hope this helps to establish the notability. Warm greetings :-) Johannespassion (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EngvarB[edit]

Hi! As suggested here, I would like to use the EngvarB script to remove American English from the National Treasures of Japan article. I followed the installation instruction, but can't find any buttons. Where should I look for them? bamse (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found the buttons (in toolbox, but only in editing mode). But somehow it does not work as expected. If I open (edit) an article which has some American word in it and press "British English" in the toolbox, the word does not get fixed (the changes are not displayed). Am I doing something wrong? bamse (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I am new to script-writing, but am unfortunately not allowed to run any automation in article space. However, I have tested the script as best I could in userspace, and it does work. My test script took its time with the article you cited above. You can try the script again. Incidentally, you will now also find an additional button 'Protect Words', which is the [more than] half-way step for the script. This button's function will stop after having inserted double-xes (xx) to protect words which would otherwise be converted to Egvar. You can then click on the 'British English' or 'Oxford English' buttons to convert the words and remove the protection. If it still doesn't work for you, I would ask you to wait until more people have tried it out, and I will then work on making the script faster, if that is at all possible. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two persistent problems I've been talking about[edit]

They are:

– Present
– present

which should both be simply:

–present

(all en dashes).

And:

— (the spaced eM dash, not allowed by the MoS, thank heavens), which should be:
— (no spaces).

Thought you'd be interested! Tony (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Are you and Tony1 the same person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarhuman3 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of. I talk to him quite a lot, so if we are the same person, that would be an indictment on my sanity. ;-) In actual fact, he's in a different time zone, has different skin colour. However, we share much the same philosophy of how articles should look Wikipedia, although we have different topic areas which interest us. That may explain why you may see us doing similar work. Have a good day. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

errr ... no, we're not the same person. Nor am I HWV258, who was accused of being me last year—we have similar skin colour, but both turned up to the pre-Wikiglam dinner in Sydney, so plenty of witnesses for that. Ohconfucius couldn't be me, because he doesn't know how to use an en dash—I am an en-dash fanatic. OK? Tony (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking[edit]

OC, there was really no point in your repeatedly reverting in that manner. Pfly suggested linking to the article on Canadian provinces, not simply dropping the link, and Freshacconci felt the link was warranted. You said "what is being done here seems like linking for its own sake" - but I would argue that your and Tony's tag-team edits are delinking for delinking's sake. As I've told Tony, I'd be far more supportive of your delinking campaign if it were focussed on the truly overlinked material, without the obsessive removal of useful links. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define "useful". HWV258. 09:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has long given up with Vancouver, AFAICT... meanwhile, you've still failed to demonstrate why 'Canada' is germane. While I'm not ecstatic about the provinces link, I'm prepared to let that stick because its direct relevance is stronger; but no, Canada doesn't pass. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion; just because you don't care for it does not make it irrelevant. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your talking about my 'obsession' without mentioning your own, well... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:2012 consult thumb.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:2012 consult thumb.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EngvarB script[edit]

I like this script. I like it a lot. Just thought I'd say cheers for something so useful! But just one thing... I'm not so sure about the British flags being added to the top of articles. Firstly, it overlaps the featured article star/good article badge and looks messy, and secondly, it arguably violates MOS:FLAG. We already have a template for the talk page that is relatively out-of-sight; as much as I like the flag (and it appears you do too, considering the rather large one you have up there), adding one to the article itself is slightly pretentious, and may even be controversial on some (e.g. Ireland). But aside from that, nice work! This script will be very handy. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! I understand, and I'll lose the flag. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR[edit]

I was wondering if you could explain and/or revert this edit to the Battle of Saipan article. It's been too long to just hit the undo button, but since you seem to use a script for this, it should be possible to convert the dates back into Month, Day Year format.

I would also ask, er, please don't do stuff like this in the future. Making a mostly-British English article consistent is fine, of course, and surely a good use of the script, but switching American date styles over? You cite WP:ENGVAR but violate it by switching the format of the dates used in the article for no reason. If there is any perferred form of English in a battle between the United States and a non-English speaking country, it should obviously be American English. But who cares about that? If it was written in British English by its major contributors that'd have been fine. However, it was not; it was written in American English and the date format was Month, Day. Please, please, please respect what the actual content-creators have done rather than change them up by script; this is one of the most deeply annoying things about Wikipedia in proportion to its actual relevance.

I'd add as well that I for one strongly prefer &ndash ; style dashes which are clear and written out rather than Unicode characters, but that's a different issue since most script-writers seem to love replacing that for no reason. There doesn't seem to be any policy at all on this so it's a free for all, though, and I can't fault you if you think that actually helps (though I disagree). SnowFire (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Ah, yes! Interesting case... First of all, I would point out the the basis for unifying the dates was WP:MOSNUM, and not WP:ENGVAR- as you assumed (probably because of the standard edit summary I adopted - so it's my fault, I guess. There is an existing convention (in MOSNUM) that US military articles are in dmy format as this is the preferred format of the US military. In addition, you are correct in saying this is an international battle, and it is by no means clear that what applies to US military articles necessarily applies, so another criterion came into play: as can be seen from this very first edit, it seemed to me that the convention where the format may be determined by the first major contributor may be invoked. As I understand from MOSNUM, it seems there is nothing amiss to aligning the date formats to dmy.
As for the dashes, I happen to feel that edit screens are often a mess and are impossible to read, from all the templates, citations and other bits and bobs, and I just thought I was contributing to reducing screen clutter by executing that search-and-replace, rendering the edit screen more legible. However, I do admit it is often difficult to tell when a minus/hyphen sign is used compared to an endash or emdash should these unambiguous markers be removed. I thank you for pointing out that scriptwriters seem to prefer this too. I trust this satisfactorily deals with your concerns. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I was unfamiliar that MOS:NUM specifies that date format for US Military articles... suspect that was one of those NATO harmonization deals. Yeah, ideally the edit summary would have cited that more specifically. Not sold on the "first edit" criterion usually, though; "major contributors" (which was not me, to be clear) always struck me as a far better criteria. However, I'd say that the US Military criterion is fair enough here.

The difficulty in distinguishing - from – in the edit box is the complaint about Unicode dashes, yes, and ideally scriptwriters would NOT prefer it ;-) but so it goes.

As a future note, the edit you made did make one particularly odd construction - "8 July–12" which doesn't make tons of sense (it was originally "July 8–12". Not sure what the proper dmy construction is of that as 8-12 July also reads strangely to me. SnowFire (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for peer review[edit]

I am inviting you to comment and, if you desire, collaborate on the creation of the article on Guangzhou's Chocolate City currently in userspace. I plan to migrate it into mainspace once some other seasoned editors have given it a glimpse and read-through. If you have some spare time, please lend a hand. Best wishes, Colipon+(Talk) 02:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sure, I will gladly take a look. In the meantime, I invite you to look at Goddess of Democracy (Hong Kong). Cheers, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight for this Love[edit]

Although i appreciate all of the corrections you've made you got one thing wrong. Cheryl Cole is a British subject and the article is written in mostly British English therefore the date formats should aslo be British per MOS:DATE. British format = DD-MM-YYYY whereas the American one (which you used in the refs) is yyyy-mm-dd which formats as MM, DD YYYY. regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh boo, I got it all wrong. I can't explain why, so I can only apologise. I'll try and fix it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've gone to try and fix the article. However, maybe I'm going blind in my old age - try as I might, I do not find a single mdy-format date in the entire article. As there were different date formats in the references section, I had unified these to those within the body of the article too. These were all changed to dmy format, compliant with MOSNUM. Cheers, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess of Democracy[edit]

Hi. The problem that I see here is that the bolded title is only part of the link, which takes liberties with the format requirements (the new article bolded). This is highly unusual, and your concern that it may be confused for the original GoD statue is a risk taken: if we did this for all homonyms, we'd have to introduce a new format; since the readers are presumed to be clicking the links and see what the article is about, it really isn't an issue. about the linking of Hong Kong: I find that it's best to link all or most place names, to avoid discussions about which one is and isn't linkable - consider that your hook may end up in a queue that has links to United Kingdom, for instance, and not linking Hong Kong would be an anomaly.

Now, I'm sure you're already set on your format preferences, but please consider these points. I won't intervene in that hook any longer, but try and see it from my perspective and, if anything in the above makes sense to you, please consider tweaking the hook accordingly. Thank you, Dahn (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept your explanation as to how it works at DYK. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Act now-all wrong2012.gif listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Act now-all wrong2012.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check...[edit]

Somebody w/ more knowledge of Chinese history needs to look at this guy's edits. started yesterday, changes flags + pics, and caught my attention with phrases like "they lied" and "brutally killed". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably true, then... Of course, we all know well no-one was killed at Tiananmen in 1989 - in fact, it didn't happen at all. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen so far, although there are some formatting anomalies, the editor appears to be kosher. The articles seem properly sourced, although I have not much time to examine the references cited today. More anon. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		Zhonghua Barnstar of Merit
		With 10th anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, I only had to press "Mark as patrolled" and move on. For your contributions to Wikipedia in general, and your contributions to articles about Chinese subjects specifically, I award you this barnstar. --I dream of horses @ 04:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
		_{this WikiAward was given to Ohconfucius by I dream of horses @ on 04:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

I'm most surprised to receive this within seconds of me putting this article into mainspace. Much appreciated. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a quick new page patroller. :-) --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 05:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dramaout[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. I would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd Great Wikipedia Dramaout[edit]

Coming soon to a Wiki near you...The Third Great Wikipedia Dramaout will be July 5-9. Please join us for serious content creation!
Signup is here.

You have received this message because you participated in The Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout.

DYK for Goddess of Democracy (Hong Kong)[edit]

On June 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goddess of Democracy (Hong Kong), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare to be amazed[edit]

		The Half Barnstar
		Per the request of the sinister Bishonen LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit bemused by the goings on there, and even more bemused to be the designated recipient. Thanks nonetheless. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work[edit]

Hey there. I randomly stumbled across some of your articles and contributions. Keep up the good work! Intranetusa (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) many thanks. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) [edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Martinvl (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of USA flag icons[edit]

In several of your recent edit sessions on aircraft articles, you've removed the {{USA}} flag icons from the "Operators" sections of these articles. Further, you have removed only the USA flags, while the flags of other nations were allowed to remain. For example, in the Northrop F-5, there wer 34 national flags listed, yet you only removed the two USA flags, per this diff. I assume this is because of the tools you're using, and that it is kicking out the USA flags because of its own criteria. However, removing only one nation's flags is highly inconsistent, whatever the rationale. Further, the use of these flags in such sections is permitted by WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines, so a removal of all flags without prior discussion will be seen as unhelpful. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, this would be just one of many apparent inconsistencies within WP, and a small one at that. While it might seem desirable to have consistency for its own sake, consistency it does not mean we would necessarily have all words or all country names linked - after all, some words are so common, and some countries are much more well-known than others to the anglophone world. I would happily leave them were the 'United States' unlinked, but I feel such is totally unnecessary in circumstances such as the articles concerned. Thanks for your comprehension. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other options, such as going to the templates themselves, and seeking a consensus to remove the links from the common nations. But removing only certain icons now is disruptive. Thanks for your comprehension! - BilCat (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such as option 'B'... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at BilCat's page. Tony (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style[edit]

Regarding some manual of style changes you made to a few USAF unit, I went though the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and didn't see anything that said an ongoing date should be 'since 1978' vice '1978-present.' Did I miss it?--Ndunruh (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's more elegant? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Ndunruh's page. Tony (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elegant is certainly a subjective term, but really it doesn't make a difference to me. I'd just like to know if there is a codified policy so that I can make sure that my editing meets muster.--Ndunruh (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it lies in subjective no-man's-land, as I don't think there's policy one way or the other - like prose style. So, no, it's not in violation of any guideline. People who have created infoboxes have put that into their [locked] examples as 'date-present'. I am informed there have been MoS discussions about it, but seems to have been inconclusive. I guess that 'date-present' can be preferable for some as it can be updated in a flash by removing the 'present' and substituting a date. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Christineargue[edit]

Thank you for addressing the problems with this article! I had just written a note last night to another editor asking if something could be done about it. Often at night I'll go through the list of musician's biographies needing infoboxes and then I add to many of them just to get them completed, esp. if they already have a photo and much of the necessary information. It also helps to go through the list, and check manually to see if a lot of names needing infoboxes already have them, and remove the request on the Bio listas tag on the talk page. This one already had an infobox and I began to clean it up before noticing that it didn't belong there! Glad you noticed the error there! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess I would never have come across the problem had you not raised it on Rich's talk page. Glad to be of service. Happy editing! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit summary[edit]

Please avoid making spurious accusations, especially in edit summaries. Your changes affected templates that appear on hundreds (if not thousands) of talk pages. I do apologize for not immediatey leaving you a note, as planned, but real life intervened. However, it would have been better to ask instead of accuse. As for the template, templates and tempate documentation pages are not the appropriate place for the note you added. Instead, you may wish to add it to the existing directory of user scripts, and at the appropriate project pages. (Language, copy-editing, WP Britain etc.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are referring to this. I apologise for my 'spurious accusation'. However, two reverts by you on a related subject within the space of a few hours would already seem highly coincidental, especially considering that I had originally placed mention of my script at American and British English spelling differences over a week ago. You will pardon me for jumping to the wrong conclusion seeing that {{British English}}, the Canadian and TV series articles which you seem to prefer to edit would create an exceedingly small intersection. Thank you for your advice on suitable placements, nevertheless. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreviewer rights[edit]

I took the liberty of requesting them for you. I hope that's okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, I believe I may already have been granted the right. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You were reviewer but not autoreviewer, from what I saw. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caught out by the subtleties! <blush> BTW, I love the cute picture on your userpage. Cheers, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.