User talk:Ohconfucius/archive32

DEFENDER OF HONG KONG

9:34 PM, Tuesday November 12, 2024

This user is a native of Hong Kong.

This user is a citizen of the United Kingdom.

This user lives in France.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 10 months and 13 days.

... The year ... Avoid inserting the words the year before the digits: 1995, not the year 1995, unless the meaning would otherwise be unclear. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GnGn (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Great War battles

Your attention to the articles is much appreciated; I was curious about the flagicons though, what difference does flagu make?Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

PS can you recommend a Great War infobox which has the usual things in it for me to refer to so I stop repeating mistakes? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• The {{flag}} template displays the flag as well as the linked country name; the {{flagu}} template displays the flag as well as the country name but does not link it viz:

{{flag|England}} displays as England; {{flagu|England}} displays as England

Have I understood and answered your question? Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please adjust your script to avoid breaking |doi=

This edit broke a |doi= value by replacing a hyphen with a dash. It also replaced a hyphen with a dash in an article title; the original title at the source appears to use a hyphen. Can you please adjust your script to avoid that error in the future? Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think not, because that action is performed by dashes.js – a very useful script that is no longer maintained. I'll try and get it patched, but the increasing proliferation of templates tolerating or endorsing the use of hyphens where dashes should be used makes it increasingly problematic. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about "the increasing proliferation of templates tolerating or endorsing the use of hyphens where dashes should be used". The link in the DOI parameter became non-functional when the hyphen was changed to a dash. In other words, before your change, clicking on the DOI took you to the cited source. After your change, clicking on the DOI resulted in an error. That has nothing to do with templates.

As for the title error, that is cosmetic, but you did change the rendering of the title away from what is in the source.

If you can't get the script patched, you can make a copy of it in your own userspace, fix it, and change your vector.js so that it calls your fixed version instead of GregU's broken version. That's what I did to make custom AutoEd scripts for my own use. Let me know if you need help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Phooey.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Phooey.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought "self made" was a standard way to populate that field, and whose meaning was unambiguous. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Invader (artist)

slakr^\ talk / 09:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job on the removal of Flag Icons across the project. JOJ Hutton 23:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Olympus scandal

The article Olympus scandal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Olympus scandal for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Centre half

Hello. Re this edit: perhaps you could tell your script that "centre half" isn't hyphenated, according to the Oxford Dictionaries. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Struway2:Noted. It seems, though, that it's hyphenated according to our conventions. And I've always had misgivings about Oxford orthography. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't think we have conventions on this one, just people who write differently... There was no hyphenation at defender (association football) for a long time until "corrected" in April 2012, changed back (the headings, anyway) a few months later because "Thousands of links don't work because of the dashes", and re-"corrected" a few weeks later. But without fixing incoming to match, obviously... I don't do Oxford spelling as such, e.g. couldn't use -ized (it just looks AmEng), and I'm not desperately fussed about centre(-)half, I'm just not keen on a script changing away from an acceptable spelling or orthography. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Scripts

Hey, Ohconfucius. I'm having trouble getting your scripts to work; actually no scripts are working for me right now. If you have a minute, would you mind taking a look? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• @GabeMc: I've been away for a few days, so apologise for the inactivity. I am informed that the scripts had been down, but they seem to be working now. I loaded your vector file and the MOSNUM and ENGNAR scripts appear to be working as intended for me. In any event, there's nothing else in your vector.js to conflict with them. Hopefully you are able to get them working again by reloading the cache. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I cleared by browser cache a couple of times (F5 + Ctrl), but I still can't see any scripts when I click the scripts button. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• @GabeMc: Ah, try looking under the 'tools' button. ;-) Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Under tools I have the dupe link and page size tool, as well as delink common terms ones and date formatting, but no engvar tool. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• @GabeMc:For reasons I cannot explain, the Engvar buttons can be found if you click on the 'Scripts' button. Cheers, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• When I click on the scripts button nothing happens. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• @GabeMc: Strange. I loaded your vector file to replicate what you have, and all the Engvar buttons show on the sidebar after I press on the 'Scripts' button. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• @GabeMc:Try pasting the code in your monobook instead. Radiopathy •talk• 23:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Radio. I tried, but I'm not technical enough to pull that stuff off. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• @GabeMc:@Radiopathy: Sorry, the link was wrong; this is the correct one. Just copy and paste these two scripts, then save. Radiopathy •talk• 23:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js'); //[[User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js]] importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js'); //User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js

Still nothing, but I'm sure I'm messing something up. I have the dates tool, but that's in the toolbox. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• @GabeMc:Gosh, this is puzzling as hell and soooo frustrating. Radio had a similar problem, and tore his hair out for a bit until he got it working through some fiddling. Back then when it happened, I posted to the Village Pump but got no response. All I can tell you is that the scripts work as intended when I loaded your vector file. There's nothing there that I know of that would cause a conflict so I don't know what else to do or suggest. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• @GabeMc:Maybe one more suggestion. The various js files where the script code resides can be imported ad infinitum. And as I managed to get your vector.js to work, you might like to try copying the entire contents of that vector.js file and replacing the entire contents of the monobook.js. You can then either switch to monobook interface in your preference to see if the scripts can be called, and/or you can stay in vector interface but import your monobook.js back to your vector.js by using a one-line vector file "importScript("User:GabeMc/vector.js");" (without the quote marks). It might just do the trick. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Practiise what you preach

I've noticed two instances now where "practicing" is changed to "practiising" - like here (search it). Radiopathy •talk• 03:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
	Gerald Shields, founder of the North Korean Fashion Watch, awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts to add reliable and poignant discussions about North Korean topics, such as Ri Sol-ju. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Natalia Poklonskaya

Your recent editing history at Natalia Poklonskaya shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

It is worth noting that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Poklonskaya was closed early as "snow keep" by an inexperienced non-admin who obviously didn't take any notice whatsoever of the dearth of policy-based keep arguments, the keep votes essentially being WP:ILIKEIT, and ignored the extremely strong policy-based statements as to its incompatibility with policy, especially WP:BL1PE. WP:DRV is in order, I think. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Barney the barney barney: Don't you just hate it when Wikipedia indulges in the sort of sexism that under normal circumstances sends the majority of people into paroxysms? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ohconfucis (talk · contribs) - I will assume good faith that that comment was not directed at me, for her gender has nothing to do with her lack of notability which is centred on WP:BLP1E. Clearly this particular entirely unnotable subject has been singled out for an extremely brief spurt of attention by Wikipedia editors largely due to her being an attractive female - this is where the sexism is. The internet has already forgotten about her 15 minutes of fame. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Barney the barney barney: If I said anything or even appeared to imply that you were being sexist, I would most sincerely apologise and grovel at your feet. I was, as you were, referring to the article and its creators and apologists cashing in on her being cute and attractive. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Aalen

Just a courtesy heads-up, on Aalen and your changes. Whereas, I probably wiki too much, some of the changes you made IMHO, probably should not have been made. Baseball and volleyball are both no-brainers for US editors and most western editors and users; however there are many out there that may wish a wikilink on those. Thanks for cleaning up my litter, I am trying to be a little more tight on my editing, but sometimes I forget what some of the finer things are.speednat (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Noted. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

MH370

I really should not spend so much time on the tedium of cleaning up citations ... but there are so many screwy things with the citations on this article, I felt I should just leap in, where angels fear to tread! It does not help, of course, that there is confusion between the Ministry of Transport and Department of Civil Aviation in Malaysia ... they seem to be interchangeable at times. I suspect the Civil Aviation Ministry is part of the Ministry of Transport, who knows? Anyway, I found one press release that started out on one ministry site, disappeared and reappeared on the other ministry site. I guess this is an example of the kind of confusion that the Chinese relatives are complaining about... Enquire (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is the extension of the Bluefin-21 contract not relevant? Roundtheworld (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Roundtheworld: It's assumed all along that assets are available as long as they are useful, and there is no indication anywhere in the article that Bluefin's use was less than for the duration of the search. There's also no mention that it was on hire to the US government. So I didn't see why the small detail of its contract extension needed to be mentioned; the coatrack just sows more confusion as to the ownership and operation of the bot. Less is more. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to see refs to GeoResonance removed from the Timeline. But this raises the question of what should go in the Timeline. If some wreckage is seen/found and subsequently discounted should that be included? That seems on a par with GeoResonance claims to me. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Good point. But we quickly agreed to exclude the witchdoctor's effort, this is less folkloric but just as mumbo-jumbo. I'm tempted to remove more, including the oilslick and what drifted ashore at Perth. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ohconfucius. You have new messages at Enquire's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Virginia Tech massacre

While I appreciate your trying to improve this article, many of the edits you made were unnecessary or flat-out wrong. There is no point, for instance, in reversing the order of listing "|publisher=" and "|work=" in the citation template; where they are listed in the resulting citation isn't relevant to where they are listed in the template. You also were inconsistent with your changes; at times, when both "publisher" and "work" were present, you listed "publisher" first, at other times, you listed "work" first.

You also assigned names to references that were used only once in the article, including a reference that is a dead link with no archive available. This is a waste of time and bytes; if the references wind up being used elsewhere, that is the time to give them names, not before.

Additionally, you deleted valid information in the citations. For example, you changed:

<ref name="WashPost">{{cite web| first=Kirstin| last=Downey| title=Loss Creates a Terrible Contrast in Lives So Similar| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802551.html| publisher=The Washington Post| work=Virginia Tech Shootings| date=April 19, 2007| accessdate=May 2, 2014}} to

<ref name="WashPost">{{cite web| first=Kirstin| last=Downey| title=Loss Creates a Terrible Contrast in Lives So Similar| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802551.html| work=Virginia Tech Shootings| date=April 19, 2007| accessdate=May 2, 2014}}

You removed correct information: "publisher=The Washington Post". If anything, "work=Virginia Tech Shootings" is incorrect, as that is not the name of the newspaper/website, but of a series of stories it ran. I saw no other way to include that "subhead" in the template, but I'm still learning about how best to populate the various fields.

The script also converted "[[Engineering science and mechanics|Engineering Science and Mechanics]]" to "[[Engineering science and mechanics]]", rather than the correct "[[Engineering Science and Mechanics]]".

Please have a look at why your script made some of these changes and see if you can correct it. What took you only a few minutes to do will take me many more to correct. Thank you.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 08:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your script also automatically assigned "ref name=20070418abcnews" to three separate and distinct articles; I'm sure the script didn't consider that there would be multiple stories from the same news source on the same date, but such was the case in this incident, and will probably be true in future incidents as well.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 10:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm pleased to see that you have sided with the conclusion of the Vietnam geonames RfC, even having abstained on the original RfC, it's worth more to have a sensible moderate voice say things. BTW in passing (the thanks was the reason for coming) re "the Cyrillic alphabet because it isn't Roman (and there have been no end of argument over Novak Djokovic)" - indeed, although I think everyone accepts the "Dj" exception for this Đoković, and his brother, as a special case. But as Serbia moves further away from Tito-era Cyrillic and into tabloid Latinica (i.e. Croatian, but don't you dare say I said that) one can expect the 1912 era throwback "Dj" to totally disappear for Serbians traveling abroad and follow those who already pack Belgrade tabloid Đ in their kitbag; the timeline on Novak Djokovic's retirement and Wimbledon investing in non-wooden scoreboards being 5 or more years off. So that article a non-issue, we hope. Thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Falun Gong 2 enacted and closed

Hello Ohconfucius. Following an amendment request you submitted, as of 11:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) the Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Lolita

So back in February 2013 your script changed the ENGVAR of Lolita from American English to British English. This is incorrect, per WP:TIES, as the novel was written in the US by a naturalized American citizen and is set entirely in the US. More importantly, the ENGVAR or the article was established in AmEng before you changed it, incorrect per WP:RETAIN. Others have brought the issue up on the talk page, but I think, as the one to make the initial change, that you should reverse it. oknazevad (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

Hello Ohconfucious, a moment of your time please. You said we shouldn't run this on the front page. It is claimed that, since you added your opinion, the article is seriously improved. I would like to ask you to revisit the discussion and, at the bottom, (briefly) state if you are still opposed. It is a matter of some contention, to put it mildly. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Drmies: I think I've said all I wanted to say there, and I've had some minor success in trimming the offending section of the article but failed miserably to merge or get rid of it. I'm tired and am dropping them from my watchlist. No doubt you'll let me know if there are more interesting developments, such as Moscow going ape$41t or throwing more cruft about. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Invader Louvre Statue crop.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Invader Louvre Statue crop.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Bug in your bot.

[here] you bot replaced "http://parovoz.com/library/ria.08.02.96.html" to "http://parovoz.com/library/ria.8 February 1996.html". it seems to be a bug.

• Yes, and now fixed. Thanks. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Squad lists

Please stop removing the nationalities from the squad lists. There is no consensus for your changes, and they will be reverted shortly. The matter has also been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Thanks, Number 57 08:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Number 57:I warrant that some pretty flags, in very specific circumstances, may be justified. I have been careful in not removing any of those. Of those I removed, none of those players represent the countries whose flags are apposed in the context of their club activities, and as such these violate MOS:FLAG. Even if case can be made for some players, there is absolutely no case with respect to the chairmen, presidents and managers. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with lists of managers or chairmen, but removing them from the squadlists is not on. Please stop doing that, and help restoring the ones you've removed would be appreciated. Number 57 08:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

    That's actually a good point, Ohconfucius. It's misleading to flag players who are not representing that particular country. And please, let's not have flags in place of country-names, anyway. Tony (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

    • @Number 57:The problem with flagcruft and fancruft in these articles is pervasive. I assert that their use is gratuitous in those cases where I removed them. This is plainly illustrated by the indiscriminate flagging of managers, presidents and physiotherapists. You need to explain to me why these nationalities are relevant in a way which explains why their use is not a breach of MOS:FLAG. I'd also like to know why it is then necessary to plaster entire articles with mostly the same flag. If this is useful information, which I still contest, it would be less confusing for readers to see the country name apposed to the player by exception only. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I am aware of your antipathy towards them, but there is clearly no consensus for their removal. It is not my job to personally justify their use to you – they have been used on Wikipedia for almost a decade and numerous editors hold the opinion that their use is entirely legitimised by WP:MOSICON. Given the long-standing consensus for their use, it is you who should be presenting a case for why they should be removed and to gain consensus for that position before proceeding to remove valuable information from articles. Number 57 08:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Number 57 and Ohconfucius: I noticed that MOS:FLAG redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags and WP:MOSICON redirects to the more general Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons. Since you're each referring to the same MOS guideline, it may be helpful in reaching a resolution if you each point out the specific verbage of the guideline that pertains to this set of articles. Just a suggestion - hope it helps! GoingBatty (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Humble apologies

I do need to apologize for the way that my edit sounded and looked on the Albert Einstein Talk Page. I didn't mean to make it sound so course. I had wanted to soften it up a bit originally but I forgot to do so, with all the other things I was trying to convey in that post. I really do commend your efforts to try and not change MDY to DMY. I agree that any article with strong ties to the English speaking countries of the UK, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, and others should use DMY, but on the other hand, the articles with the stronger ties to the English speaking countries of the United States and Canada (per MOS), should use MDY. Cheers and have a great day.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I am in the middle of writing on your talk page, and was also drafting a comment for Albert's talk. No offense. And I'm glad we seem to be beginning to understand each other. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jojhutton:Why do I still dislike this? Well, except in retrospect, I do not consider the changes I made to film articles in the past was controversial nor deliberately so while I was doing it. We had a rather productive discussion at the time as a result. As you know, I work through categories and successively and the changes to many articles happen over a relatively short space of time.

    To recap: the films whose articles I put to dmy were in line with how I and a few others would define a film's nationality. While some editors in Wikipedia would hold fast in defining Aliens as an American film because of the studio, it is almost invariably referred to as "Ridley Scott's Aliens" and oftentimes referred to British. By the same notion, I may class Quartet as an "American film" because the director is thoroughly American, but it may be classed as a "British production" overall because of the studio. Am I the only one bothered that some Alfred Hitchcock films are classed as British whilst others American? Your refactored comment that my behaviour has "improved" implies I was perhaps trying to make a point but was stopped by public condemnation. In truth, it is because I participated in the relevant discussion, and I yielded to consensus. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

    • I removed it. It wasn't really needed and its in the best interest of all.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Have a good day! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demerara rebellion of 1823

The article Demerara rebellion of 1823 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Demerara rebellion of 1823 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Heberlein

Hi, take a look at Ann Heberlein. A article I created a few days ago. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, it doesn't do anything for me. I had a look at it already after you posted to Batty's talk. It seems that she is barely notable. In addition, one English source fails the independence test; all the other sources used in the article are in Swedish. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Kidnapping in China

I can simply remove the Hong Kong's note, if that is your main issue, and add more about the mainland China. I don't really think that your opinion is incorrect, we do treat Hong Kong to be different than China, for example, we do have Human trafficking in Hong Kong and Human trafficking in the People's Republic of China. OccultZone (Talk) 07:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't object to the stuff about Hong Kong per se, because HK is a part of China and most of the HK kidnappings are cross-border (as your source clearly states), but leaving it in does contribute a NPOV problem that I mentioned. Removing the HK stuff would go some way to alleviating quite a few of my concerns. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

One-liner about Hong Kong would be enough then. I will shortly inform you here, once I make changes. OccultZone (Talk) 07:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm not all that impressed with The Politics of Cross-border Crime in Greater China as a source, as it has its fair share of inaccuracies and oversimplifications. Compare its details with the Cheung Tze-keung article to see what I mean. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I have removed it, considering that we are talking about whole China than just few territories or cities. You think this[1] [2] incident should be mentioned? OccultZone (Talk) 08:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Possibly, depending on where you are heading. I think it has a relevance. I think the scope something you should consider carefully. Right now, the article is too general and the scope is not sufficiently well-defined. It's just a collection of facts that don't really flow one to another.

  A longer section about the history of kidnapping would be good if you can find more information; the mention of studies is too brief and these can be used to greater effect. I'd also suggest that you have a separate part of the introduction that analyses/segments the different types of kidnapping motive, such as outright child abduction, commercial kidnapping, blackmail/ransom. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes there should be separate sections of the types of kidnappings, similar should be done with all other kidnapping articles that I've made. OccultZone (Talk) 08:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Go for it! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Now before I would ping that DYK, I would like to know your opinion. How is the page now? Since your objections, maybe that page has been expanded by 2 times. OccultZone (Talk) 11:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Thank you for your continuing effort on the article. I still feel that the article attempts to juxtapose too many apparently unrelated strands of information to the degree that I feel the article is still quite fragmented. At this point in time, unless you have much more details to complete the time line of kidnapping in China, I would suggest that you removed the 'History' and 'Studies' sections altogether, and concentrate on the modern phenomena that is motivated purely by financial factors (ie not political). To that end, you could reincorporate elements from The Politics of Cross-border Crime in Greater China about Hong Kong victims of crime in Guangdong province as more related. The previous version was inaccurate because you had written that these were crimes that took place in HK when this was not so.

The Crackdown section could do with expansion, and I would like to see more than arrest figures. Any information on how these gangs operate would be of interest to the article. To substantiate the efforts at combating kidnapping, perhaps you could elaborate on any efforts taken against adoption agencies operating in this sector. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Be back here soon. OccultZone (Talk) 03:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Flags and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

I undid your recent edits to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation because what it was changed too doesn't make sense. I get that MOS:Flag argument and don't disagree with the concept of your changes just the final result. I was actually wondering if you could modify the script (easily) such that it just removes the flag from all places it appears on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. I believe that would be better but making the changes manually would be unfun. Just one more person complaining about your removing flags. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested input

First, if you know anything current about Soka Gakkai, that article and related articles have been a bit of a battleground for some time now, and I think that more eyes would definitely be useful. Also, FWIW, now that you can edit FG again, (editorial comment begins) like you always should have been able to do (editorial comment ends), it might be worth while to look over msybe asking for some accounts from Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. I know that WorldCat says there was an All about Falun Gong published in Delhi a few years ago available on one databank, and a few others listed on WorldCat as well. I've asked that the Delhi site be contacted to maybe give some free accounts, and if it can the information from it might be useful. I am more or less retired from wikipedia right now because of making more efforts on lists of articles in reference works and working on wikisource, but am more than willing to at least see if I can get any sources you can't at request. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

About the Turkish Airlines destinations

Thank you for your "thanks" concerning to the Turkish Airlines destinations, as I've also received from Jetstreamer, though it was my mistake to make again the links for the countries (this is because I publish in Portuguese, Spanish and Italian Wikipedias too (mainly) and there the rules are a bit different). I have an updated map about the Turkish Airlines destinations too, in the articles of 10 wikipedias. And I noticed, with 1 week of delay, that Benghazi was suspended, not from Wikipedia, but from other media (The Young Turks channel of Youtube, to be honest) that all the airspace over Benghazi was a no-flight zone now! And I confirmed by checking the Turkish Airlines sources (including flight info from Atatürk Airport). By the way, according to the sources, the Benghazi Airport article is not updated. I thank any advice from you about further updates about the Benghazi Airport and other destinations from Turkish Airlines (or from TAP Portugal that I also update usually), so I can be more efficient about its updates.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

GA nomination

can you help me to get GA nomination on Johor Darul Takzim F.C. article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakcikfarhan (talk • contribs) 04:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving of Football Club Articles

HI. Can you point to where the convention is that clubs should be referred to as "F.A." or "F.C." as opposed to FA or FC? I cannot find one and the Manual of Style seems to prefer FC. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Discussion now opened at WT:FOOTY. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi Ohconfucius. I'm aware of some tussle going on about flagicons; everyone, including you, would be wise to give it a breather for a little while. It's difficult to know what to do about it when an editor who clearly does speak English utterly refuses to engage with others who have seen fit to revert his/her edits. I see you've made considerable efforts on that user's talkpage to discuss the matter; it's because of his/her failure to respond and explain over many days that I've posted a 3RR template there. Tony (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

hi ohcofucius... i know you wanna help to improve about malaysian football pages but you must understand most club in the malaysia did not have official website... so wikipedia only source information to malaysia football fans... i hope u can stop delete about managerial staff.. about the flag icon i did not understand why u wanna to remove it? if u see MUFC they do the same thing. i hope understand why i always reverts the pages.. Bangface (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Bangface:Thank you for your reply. The reason I have been removing the flags and the lists is that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for other organisations, and we certainly should not be including details which are not notable and relevant and of undue weight, and which cannot be reliably sourced. There seems to be broad agreement that flags are being overused, and also that we ought not to be including detailed lists of all and sundry. We are now having a discussion about what level of detail should be included for club staff at WT:FOOTY. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of LS3/5A

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article LS3/5A you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Peterborough United squad list

I notice you have taken the flag icons out of the Peterborough page. What was the thinking behind doing this? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• @RoyalBlueStuey:I work mainly on matters of compliance with our manual of style. The constituent part that deals with the use of flags and icons states flag icons "may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". Yet, I find it difficult to see how the players' individual nationalities are pertinent to the club and how it operates; even less so for managers'. That's why they were removed, because without solid connection, icon use would be purely decorative. But because they are brightly coloured, they tend to give undue attention to individual nationalities, and distract readers from important facts within the article (fuller rationale here).

  Some editors obviously feel strongly attached to those pretty icons, and would point to their pervasiveness in other football clubs' articles. I do not believe that in itself justifies us continuing to tolerate breaches to our guidelines to the point of them being flagrant. I notice that someone has restored the flags for the players as some sort of compromise. It's something I could live with in the short term because I am not out to create conflict, but I feel editors need to come up with better rationale and agree to sensible use harmonised across the project. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yamaha NS-10

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yamaha NS-10 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been reported to the Arbitration Committee

Sir, I am obliged to bring this to your attention: [3] -- TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Elm

Please take a look at Battle of the elms when you get time for it.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• @BabbaQ: I've made some changes to it, and moved it to a better title. I find the political dimensions of the dispute wanting. It has a line in the lead but there seems little follow-up on it. I would suggest you making more use of Ref1 to elaborate on the political discussions and the analysis of why what happened happened. This may be specially relevant as it appears from the most recent attempt to cut down the trees. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No response at WP:ARCA?

Please consider making a response at WP:ARCA#Amendment request: Falun Gong 2. At least one of the diffs provided by TheSoundAndTheFury puts you in a bad light. If you continue to edit but make no response, you seem to be confirming that your behavior was correct, which I find hard to justify. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston:Thank you for your reminder. It is a serious allegation by an advocate of the Falun Gong, who are well known for their sensitivity to criticism and their unrelenting and no holds barred attacks of opponents of their cause, and I am obviously treating this very seriously. I am currently drafting my response in private. It looks like it will be a long one. However, as I don't want to burden Arbcom with a megatreatise, I'm carefully trying to make it as concise and comprehensive at the same time. I hope the boat will not leave without me. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that the arbs are asking when they might expect the response. Speaking as a verbose bastard myself, I can understand how making it concise might appeal to the readers, but if you can giving them some idea how much longer might be required would probably be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered asking for a temporary suspension of the case, and not editing until you are able to return to it? —Neotarf (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, if you are interested in China topics, you may also be interested in the recent (June 2) NYT article (apologies in advance for the length of the quote, the bolding is mine): [unfree content redacted - see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 10]

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

Hi ohc, I have a quick favour to ask you. Is it alright to ask that the date format for "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" to be changed to “m-d-y” rather than the current “d-m-y”? The reason I ask is because in almost all the literature I have read, including SCMP, NYT, and the Economist, the date format used to this event is “June 4” instead of “4 June”. Date auto formatting makes the format inconsistent with the way it is commonly rendered. Moreover it creates awkward phrases such as the “26 April Editorial” in the article body when the standalone article title is “April 26 editorial”. Please let me know, Colipon+(Talk) 20:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Colipon:I don't really have a problem with this proposal. It may be simpler all around, because 6-4 in Chinese seems to translate better as "June 4". Just note that how external sources refer to the date has no bearing on the running format of the dates used in the article. I'd put it to the article talk page and we can flip it if there's no disagreement there. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You might consider this list of blocked terms, which includes June 4 and 6-4. I believe the other format is BrE. —Neotarf (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC) And hmm, "In March, at least a dozen accounts by outspoken bloggers that debate political and social issues were shuttered, and in April, a chat group made up of scholars and activists working on human rights in China was deleted." and oh my, "Wen has been involved in the New Citizens Movement, a group promoting the rights of ordinary Chinese. Four activists with the group were sentenced to jail terms ranging from two to three-and-a-half years today. Wen’s “Shorting China” group included a dozen of people who were scholars, reporters and activists. The website he helped start, www.backtotiananmen.com, calls on people to visit Tiananmen on June 4..." —Neotarf (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. I'm aware of what's going on, but have been too busy to write a 25th anniversary article. Anyway, this stuff happens year in year out that it's getting tiresome. Not that it's not worth keeping up the pressure for vindication. I could boilerplate last year's article, change a few citations, and maybe add a few images... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nancykissel.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring: initiated by me? Or User:Iryna Harpy?

How is it that you get the authority to solely decide who is the culprit in initiating an edit war? The section in question was there on 16th Lok Sabha for a long time. It was User:Iryna Harpy who performed the reverting edit without even opening any discussion on the talk page of the 16th Lok Sabha article. If anyone is initiating an edit war, it is Iryna Harpy (and it seems really strange that you got to know about this event so soon, even though she does not seem to have left any message on your talk page).

Any so-called consensus that may have been reached on the talk page of the Indian general election, 2014 article's talk page does not automatically apply to other articles. If you have some problem with any content being displayed (or not being displayed) on the 16th Lok Sabha article, please discuss it on Talk:16th Lok Sabha. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)