User talk:Ohconfucius/archive31

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.

---

Template:Did you know nominations/Amash-Conyers Amendment

Ohconfucius, has the primary source issue you raised on this review been settled? Since you raised it, I thought you should be given the opportunity to say whether you think it has been addressed. If you aren't interested, then I'll call for a new reviewer to do a final check. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dewey Decimal Classification

Hello! Your submission of Dewey Decimal Classification at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Refs

Dear Con Could you pleeas chevk refs for

• Neville Chamberlain page
• Joseph Chamberlain page
• Martineau family page
• Elizabeth Jesser Reid page
• Unitarianism page

Thanks so much - I have tried but still am not sure Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.0.40 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Mike, I think I've dealt with the first three without query or problem. However, the ref in the Jesser article seems a bit complex and I can't work out which piece is the exact one to cite from. You need to mention that one specifically and remove the other ones not referred to (there are too many letters). For the Unitarism article, again, it's unclear because the work is so long and I cannot establish which section or page it needs to point to. Ideally you need the chapter name or the page number, use "|chapter=" or "|page=" within the citation template as appropriate. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Kunming attack

Hi there, I'm writing to you because of your past involvement with the Urumqi riots in 2009. There was a major knife attack in Kunming. Death toll somewhere between 29 and 34, about 140 injuries as of most recent reports. It's looking likely that the attack is associated with the Uyghur independence movement although the situation is obviously cloudy. Editors with experience working on Han / Uyghur conflict would be appreciated to make sure we stick to WP:RS and avoid WP:RECENTISM while this situation unfolds. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

List of twin towns and sister cities in China

Why not organise by province, or, at the very least, except for the four municipalities, add the province/region to the header? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 04:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• All I did was to make sure the lists were at least up to date with the content ejected from the city articles, but your suggestion might not be a bad idea at all. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Disunity?

Greets... wonder if you also see a bit of a drift pattern? e.g. [1] [2] Dl2000 (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Dewey Decimal Classification

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Scripts

Would it be possible to tell me how to use your scripts. I'd like to change an article from dmy to mdy, as it is US-based. (For what it's worth, I would remove your YYYY-MM-DD code, if possible, as it is being used, potentially correctly, in the access dates.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please code your reply so I would be notified, as I don't often check your user page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I got it to work, after reloading the browser a few times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Arthur Rubin:I'm sorry I missed your message, but I'm pleased you got the script to work in the end. Some users have had difficulty loading the script for reasons I cannot understand, but usually get it working after some perseverance. If there's any important detail that I omitted from the script documentation, I'd be happy to elaborate. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Publisher

Hey—I saw that you removed a few params of publisher data in your The Verge edit, but it didn't appear necessary per the linked rules at Help:Citation_Style_1#Work_and_publisher. What's your line of logic? czar ♔ 21:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm guilty for oversimplifying my edit summary. In fact, Template:Citation#Publisher advises: "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals." So that is the rationale behind removal of publishers. regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation of that quoted line is to not mistake the "publisher" field for the "work" field. Maybe I should have specified, I'm only asking about the last four changes from that diff (line 113+) czar ♔ 04:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Czar: I think it's pretty clear if you read the instruction as an entire block and not as separate sentences that "Publisher... Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals" means not to put "The Times" into |publisher=, and not to fill in the field when the source is a periodical (such as The Times).

  The four changes from that diff (line 113+) show removal of "|publisher=[[Dow Jones & Company]]", "|publisher=[[Time Warner]]" and "|publisher=|publisher=[[Time Inc.]]", and I think these are in line with the instructions. The first may not have been that obvious, but Time Inc is pretty obvious. I missed out "|publisher=[[Ziff Davis]]" because my script operates on "opt in" basis, and that string is not yet recognised for removal. Cheers, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how the first paragraph connects to the second. It's my understanding that the periodical's publisher is also listed under that field. Anyway, I brought it to Template talk:Citation#Periodicals and the publisher param  czar ♔ 00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Helen Fraser (feminist)

Hi, I have just been informed by a bot that there had been a discussion about an article that I had created at Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Fraser (feminist) because of a particular fact that I included. It was nice to have been informed of this and it would have been nicer to have been informed of this before the discussion had been closed and a decision reached. We might want to look at a bot that could do that. Graemp (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Con I am at it again and hopeless please check refs for 1) "Joseph Chamberlain" page 2) "Rise of Neville Chamberlain" page

THanks so much again Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.160.57 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

could you check my refs please for the unitarianism page Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.160.57 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR at 2014 Kunming attack

As noted in my edit summary for the edit that immediately preceded yours, the 2014 Kunming attack article was primarily using "-ize" variants until your edit (3 out of 4 spellings that I noticed). What is your justification for establishing non-Oxford ("-ise") British English as the selected spelling convention for that article? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've been editing the article for a while without noticing the spellings of the content until you changed the s words into z words. I see plenty of editors drive by and flip them so it was a swift reaction on my part for which I apologize. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the deference. I only changed the spelling of one word, as I disliked the inconsistency of 's' versus 'z' variants and only found one exception. I hadn't noticed 'rumors' and 'counseling', which seem American. Do you have an idea whether American or British is more appropriate for that article? (e.g., does the English press in China use one style consistently?) —BarrelProof (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I noticed that Xinhua and the other Chinese press seem to most often use American spellings and Americanisms (I don't know what code the govt uses), which us why I didn't pay much attention to the spellings. It very much depends on the editors of any given article as China doesn't use English much, and when it does it isn't natively. Articles I create where the subject is Chinese always use British English. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK

You are right - should've gone with the monkey image (there was another illustrated item where I thought the image might be a little too tangentally related). Still, it's a good hook, and I think your new image saves its picture status. There's few enough prominent women sportsmen around, at least in team sports, so I wanted to include her.

And, y'know, I have a DYK nom. I figured that if I want someone to promote mine, step 1 is to not be a hypocrite and expect others to do what I won't. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll split prep 4. Speaking of which, how far back can I take from? Is it alrght to grab the bits suggested for promotion from further back? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about your question. But there's no limit on how old or new, provided it's been approved and not already promoted and published on the MP. And subject to the limitation that it isn't one that you have written or reviewed. Cheers, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. Prep area 4's fixed, then. I don't suppose you're an admin? Might be nice to clear out the prep areas by adding them to the queue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good work, thanks. I'm no admin. And for some reason, only one queue ever gets filled at any point in time, but there isn't a backlog to worry about. If anything, there are usually not enough hooks to fill the areas. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It didn't seem that hard, frankly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"seems to contradict"

re: [3]

Yes I agree it is a usual lawyerspeak, but by objection was not to phrasing, but to the statements themselves, which "seem to be unreferenced" :-) - Altenmann >t 06:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• OK. But it is referenced. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No. YOu were not reading carefully. The reference is to a Weller 's article, but a wikipedian peppered the text with phrases "seems to contraditc Weller 's opinion". - Altenmann >t 07:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Hi there,

Thanks for all your diligent work on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Please be careful with edit conflicts though, particularly given the high rate of edits on that article. Your edit reverted my edit to insert spaced en dashes in place of hyphens in the "See also" section — unintentional, I'm sure. I've accidentally reverted my own changes, too, so I've become extra aware to exit the edit window and start again when I get an edit conflict message to avoid undoing someone else's (or my own!) good work by accident. A glitch in the matrix, I guess.

Thanks again! —sroc 💬 08:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that the techies' fixes over the last few days generate edit conflicts now where they never existed before. It's irritating. I noticed the change and was going to go back and fix it, but you beat me. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight 370

IMHO, the higher figure seems more likely. Divide the number of hours by the age in years and you'll see why. Bearing in mind that this is a long-haul aircraft. Mjroots2 (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Mjroots2:You might be right. I'm no aviation fan or expert, but I guess the situation is so bad that the airline put out figures that are half of the true figure by pulling the wrong logs. And perhaps when figures are this far apart, they warrant both being mentioned? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Have a cup of coffee...

...and Cheers! from Oz.

I don't normally involve myself in hot-topic new articles, is it always like this? So much edit warring, so many edit conflicts, so much squabbling over single words; I am beginning to think the article should be page-protected from all of us, not just the IPs. YSSYguy (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• @YSSYguy: Thanks/Yes, it's always like this. Edit warring and all goes with the territory. You should check out the Ukraine articles. It's at least ten degrees hotter in that kitchen. Here, trouble here is that there are so many sources and some are wrong. Editors each armed with different sources tend to believe theirs is right. Only, my impression is that, since the techies tweaked the Mediawiki software, I'm getting edit conflicts where they did not occur before. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

According to one of my apparently-pubescent fellow citizens you are high; how many cups of coffee have you had? :-) Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hooked on the stuff. I have to have at least two measures of coffee a day... ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In reality I am 16, so you were a few years off :) TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@AG Even more reason not to use the word 'son' then. I figured out years ago that you are a kid, after this edit.

@OC A girlfriend of mine 20-25 years ago used to have about 8 cups a day, black, no sugar; I can only drink the stuff if it doesn't taste like coffee....feel free to pour me a glass of wine though. Cheers (pun intended) YSSYguy (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I know this guy.... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hoho! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Repetition?

In Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the statement that Indonesian and NZ navy focussed their search in Malacca strait only mentioned once and it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. How come you think it is a repetition? Stop reverting and pushing your edit. Gunkarta  talk  13:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• The first mention I removed twice1 2, to be reinstated by you twice. I attempt to remove the second occurrence, and you object again. Please compare 1 and 3. They are different occurrences of the same information. But the article will survive without that detail because we don't have any such info for the other assets. Keep one, but not both. I actually prefer keeping 1. Your call. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Snake price.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Snake price.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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The word 'country'

Hello Ohconfucius I noted that you have commented on Hong Kong's status at the talk page of MH370. Would you be interested to take a look at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems, Talk:List of metro systems and Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world too, as well as the recent edit history of World's busiest airports by passenger traffic? Thanks. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think all it is is a problem with IJBall, and the only word I can use to describe this editor is "rabid". -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you've read other talk pages, u can tell (s)he's not alone. People like him/her are everywhere on Wikipedia. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't help nor am I prepared to educate or argue with people like this who have have personal issues. They seem to have a binary view of the world and cannot accept shades of grey that exist because of diplomatic necessity and political expedience. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But it's become such a worst situation that most editors believe that countries ≡ sovereign states, and actively 'correcting' cases like Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, all around Wikipedia. Any chance to hardcode how (inhabited) dependencies should be treated as a Wikipedia policy? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Brasdhonneur.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brasdhonneur.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Knife attack on Kevin Lau

The DYK project (nominate) 01:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

MH370

Dude are you high or something. You have no respect for the people involved, what a disgrace TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• The move was a commercial necessary. There's no need to take the airline's spin verbatim. Nobody from China or indeed anywhere in Asia (and probably many other superstitious people in the world) will ever get on a "MH370" ever ever ever ever again. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

??? TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Respect had zip to do with it. The airline just had to change it and put the best spin on it. I'm OK with it so long as it says "the airline says" or words to that effect. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok good TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah-chooo!! jeez... something stuck in my nose there for a minute! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Con, I got the "retrieved" date incorrect on the Harriet Martineau page on a ref. I just did - it should be March 2014 - not 2013! Could you please fix it Thanks so much mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.22.207 (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"NTSB was said to have confirmed Malaysian military radar records indicating that the aircraft had diverted to the west, back across the Malay Peninsula"

Nowhere in your edit summaries or on the Talk page have you explained what your objection is to this such that you removed it (and replaced it with that highly suspect oil rig worker sighting). I have invited to you to outline your specific objections on the article Talk page and you have refused to do so. I invite you do to so here. You dispute "Sources close to the investigation tells CBS News that the NTSB has validated the Malaysian military radar records..." do you? You've got inside information proving that the NTSB has not validated anything? You don't think it is notable if we have confirmation the aircraft "diverted to the west, back across the Malay Peninsula"? I should think it quite notable if a reliable source says the aircraft is unlikely to be found over the sea it disappeared!--Brian Dell (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• We write in summary style, in particular for the lead. That NTSB confirmation is already in the body, so it's good enough. we really ought to keep the lead lean and mean. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not "already in the body." Why didn't you move this text into the body if you are not just winging it here, coming up with whatever excuse you can on the fly for your repeated efforts to undermine and/or discredit anything sourced to someone in the U.S. government? You want the lede "lean and mean" but have time to waste space on alien abduction! I should think if we've got NTSB confirmation that the plane went west of Malaysia that's notable and can be stated quickly. What are you going to do if/when the NTSB publishes its final report? Ignore it as "unproven conclusions"? Because you cannot understand the difference between the NTSB and some guy standing on an oil rig?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's not an excuse, and I regret that you think it. I assumed that you would have put it there. It's one of the fundamental precepts that the lead should summarise the content that is already in the body, and I kind of assumed that you were a seasoned editor that would have done that rather than merely parachute it into the lead without mentioning it in the body. I saw that a huge paragraph that sprung up overnight which I only scanned, and I though it was all covered. It's no big deal to put the detail of the NTSB there, and I will, once I've finished doing what I'm doing now on another section. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't tell me that you assume it is in the body of the article. You said it's there. It isn't, just like this plane isn't in the Gulf of Thailand. You make claims evidently without caring to verify them, something I find profoundly ironic when you so stubbornly resist the U.S. government-related reports on the grounds of insufficient verification. It seems to me that our basic problem is your inability to get your facts right, and this extends to your inability to distinguish a reliable report about what has happened to the aircraft from an unreliable report.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll say for the nth time that reliability of the claim isn't the issue. It's probably as reliable as claims go and probably more reliable than any other claim that's ever been made so far regarding this flight, but that's irrelevant.

You're upset at me for fighting you on this, that I can understand, but I assure you it's not personal, and it's not an anti American bias. I fought against the Chinese satellite storyline and now I'm fighting against this, the latest fashion. But anyway, I had another look at the body, and it is there. There's the White House announcement, and all that's missing is the specific mention of the NTSB, and if that's all you're upset about, then the problem is chez toi, mon ami. We're all editing it together, so don't blame me if you're too busy trying to scoop the lead thus neglecting to put your "important detail" in the body. I would have said the detail was sufficient although it didn't tie up with what you had in the lead. I'm well entitled to making the assumption I did bearing in mind the conventions guiding our editing. Please cut your rhetoric about me lying or not getting the facts right. You're not a novice, and you should stop behaving like one. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"The latest fashion," is it? Because when organizations like the Wall St Journal, ABC News, or Reuters have their own investigative reporters dig something up, they are just being "fashionable"? What you seem to be unable, or more likely unwilling, to understand is that there is a difference between a media outlet noting that some third party has claimed such-and-such and an investigative reporting organization like Reuters having their OWN reporter discover something by contacting sources in a position to know and then reporting that previously undisclosed information. That Chinese satellite stuff was already online and required no investigative reporting at all to repeat, and more importantly investigative reporting was not, in fact, even possible as the source was not available for questioning. I'll cease to complain about your failure to get your facts right when you start getting them right and stop declaring that you are "well entitled" to making false assumptions. "all that's missing is the specific mention of the NTSB" is NOT true. Do you see the word "confirmed" in "confirmed Malaysian military radar records indicating that the aircraft had diverted to the west, back across the Malay Peninsula"? Where in the article is this confirmation noted? As the Washington Post pointed out, the White House announcement does not refer to the radar data. What's missing here is the fact that radar reports that the aircraft flew west over the peninsula which first appeared in the body of the article some time ago have subsequently had significant confirmation and accordingly should be elevated to the lede. This is not a one off report from CBS. Reuters' own investigative report backs up the contention that we've got radar records indicating this plane flew west. As for your "acting like a novice" name calling, I'll set that aside in order to simply remind you that Wikipedia is governed by policies, policies like WP:V, WP;RS, and let's not forget WP:SYNTH, policies which you have conspicuously avoided mentioning in your campaign to discredit this material as "the latest fashion."--Brian Dell (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction notification

This is to notify you that the arbitration committee authorized discretionary sanctions for article titles and capitalization. NE Ent 18:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• @NE Ent: WTF? Please could you explain what's going on, and why did you drop me notification out of the blue??? These sanctions have been in force for two years, and there is nothing new that I am aware of. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's in response to the discussion at ANI. NE Ent 20:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines

I reserve my right to revert. Don't post bullshit on my talk page.--Bazaan (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Then you reserve the right for someone to block you. Please don't post bullshit on my talk page either. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the matter to the talk page. It was you who was edit warring and tried to harass me with warnings that are absolutely uncalled for. I hope you do get blocked someday. Take care.--Bazaan (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

MH370 again

I don't want to get into an edit war so won't revert. But I don't understand why you feel that the fact that the pilots had not asked to fly together is not important. First, this was something announced at an official press conference and the Malaysians have been very careful to avoid all speculation. Second, if the fact that the police have visited the homes of the pilots is relevant, I don't see that this point isn't. Roundtheworld (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Roundtheworld: The article is awash with speculation and hypotheses, and I just thought not everything that is said is relevant, and I don't see how that's an important element at this point. The pilots should have been an avenue of investigation from the start, and the airline should have vetting procedures in place and procedures to rotate their staff. Nobody agreed on putting in the details about Fariq inviting sexy chicks into the cockpit, and I think these details ought to be left out until something more concrete is available. It's not a small detail that I feel strongly about, no major principles are involved. And as it doesn't threaten to overwhelm the article like the list of assets does, you may put it back and I won't remove it again. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please keep WP:3RR in mind, 3 reverts is not a right, and editors have been blocked for less. I don't want that to happen to you. Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I'm using this thread because I'm lazy and because I don't think there's a need for a new section; anyhoooo.... do you feel like taking care of this? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

no worries. it takes me around ten seconds to zap them with my script.  Ohc ^¡digame! 10:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein ANI

Hi, OhC, I have refactored some of the discussion [4] after a remark by Sandstein about text length, to keep the votes and discussion more separated. I tried to choose the most representative and neutral of your comments to add to your !vote, and to keep the vote comments at around 1 or 2 lines. I hope I have not misrepresented your views, if not feel free to tweak. Cheers, —Neotarf (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Con, a small bit of help needed RE refs. Please check the pages Martineau family and Harriet Martineau You are alwyas helpful Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.69.75 (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look

Please have a look here, at Brians' comment in particular. Talk:MH370#Pilot wears anti-government slogan t-shirt. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 12

Just what is so special about this date that we need it in the lede, in the form of "three days" prior to March 15? There are currently four sources cited for the clause. NONE of them support a March 12 date. I'd raise this on the article Talk page, except that I think this is idiosyncratic to you and your unwillingness to respond to everything I pointed out in the "Plane flew past three military radar installations undetected" section (including "AFTER MUCH FORENSIC WORK AND DELIBERATION, THE FAA, NTSB, AAIB AND THE MALAYSIAN AUTHORITIES, working separately on the same data, CONCUR) and instead continue to try and insinuate that "Investigators believe..." is somehow false.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• You're the one who's forcing one hot theory after another. If you want it in, you need to accept that they are related. What you write above is too detailed for the lead. The first US source that leaked the information about the four hourly pings is dated 12 March. The info was discretely leaked so that the Malaysians would find it to refocus their search and at least have a semblance of a claim that all the evidence was beginning to point that way. Malaysia announced it on 15 March. Cause–effect–datestamp. QED. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean it's your "hot theory" that the points on which the U.S., British, and Malaysian authorities have all concurred on is a "hot theory." It is pure speculation on your part that the WSJ author received his information on March 12, and even if he did, the other sources cited have different dates and different sources. "The info was discretely leaked so that the Malaysians would find it to refocus their search" and you accuse ME of generating theories? You need to take your "QED" over to WP:SYNTH for a refresher, compadre.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not synthesis, and certainly no more speculative than what's been going on in the article. A friend of Uncle Sam says "look over there...", some time later, Najib turns around and says: "look what I found!". See "US flies high in search fiasco". -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You know what, change the over-specific "three days" to "shortly" or something like that and I'd let this go. I still think it's very close to WP:SYNTH because we don't have a clear source (the Hong Kong piece is good but opinion-piece-ish) for the joining but it seems that this time you have actually tried to write the narrative and look at the sources from a holistic perspective. If you wanna connect the dots like this, I really should be saying 'atta boy" for trying to construct for once instead of obstructing. And I think you are indeed on to something with your theory here. And because you haven't rejected the possibility of "compadre" status.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And I will apologize for my tone earlier in this thread. My knee jerk reaction was that of course you were going to come along and change the lede sometime today simply because you could not resist fighting me one more time. So when you told me here you had something else in mind you left me surprised and a bit confused. So I am in fact rather pleased at your unpredictability.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL. And your gracious apology is accepted. You're right that the Standard piece is its editorial today, but it's on the nail here. I'll make the change you suggested in the course of my further edits. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Slate magazine

Hi. Was your addition giving a quote from Slate discussed on the Talk Page? This strikes me as political comment that does not really belong here. It is one thing to criticise the investigation, another to criticise the government. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, it was a bold move on may part. Sure, we can discuss it. The handling is becoming a serious political matter. Look already at the politicking going on: Air Force Chief told to withdraw his comment, which the PM later had to acknowledge following pointers from the US. Scathing criticism from China; their politicians contradicting each other; then the attempt at smearing Zaharie, etc... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's unacceptable

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=599823210&oldid=599823181

Please don't unilaterally collapse my comments on a noticeboard page like that ever again with your own evaluation of their worth - certainly not in a discussion in which you are implicitly involved. That is all. Good day. Begoon ^talk 16:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Griffith College Dublin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Infobox university
• * LLB (Hons( in Irish Law

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1999 Dubai Sevens may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * {{cite web|url = http://web.archive.org/web/20020706071500/http://irbsevens1999.irb.org/update/html/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dehani lift irrigation scheme may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of {{convert|52543|ha|sqmi}}. The total project cost is expected to be INR 12.8&nbsp;billion).<ref>http://www.vidc.gov.in/ceamt/pro/Bembla/SF.htm</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ARCA

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Article_titles_and_capitalisation — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

MH370

So most of everything is notable... What can we change??? TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hot theories

It's not a hot theory if several planes and a ship have been dispatched to the area. We are not saying that this is the plane but just reporting on actions taken to find it. If people go to the page and see no reference in the Intro to this search they will believe that the article is very out of date. And para 3 of the Intro says that US investigators "believed" so that sounds a bit like a theory too. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Alexis Pinturault Edits

Thanks for your edits to a number of skier pages. I noticed on your edits to Alexis Pinturault that you removed the Olympic rings from the section heading, however you left the size of the rings in the heading such that it became "Olympic results 50px". I have corrected it but since your edit summary says it was done by a script I thought you might want to know so you could improve the script. Feel free to remove this message. Thanks XFEM Skier (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've now adjusted my script. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Non consensus edits

Hi I noticed you have reverted some of my edits trying to expand the number of images the MH 370 page is using. Have you read the talk page recently? There is no consensus for the reverts you have made. Is there an explanation for the actions? 72.35.149.153 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• There's no consensus for adding more images to the article, hence the revert. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit at Aldous Huxley

Hey there! Since I'm not sure how exactly your script works, I just wanted to let you know that this edit to the Aldous Huxley article, as you will notice if you scroll down to line 365, changed Category:Writers from Los Angeles, California to Category:Writers from Los Angeles. While the article on Los Angeles doesn't have the state suffix, the category does. Your script may have made this edit as the target category does indeed exist, not recognising the {{category redirect}}. In any case, you may be interested in CfD/S'ing the category to match the article name in due course. Have a nice weekend. Jared Preston (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

revert on Aachen, Aalen, Aargau, and Alvar Aalto

I reverted these four "scripted" and am letting you know as a courtesy. You state in your reasoning that they are MOS issues; however, whereas some of the edits you completed may have been, the vast majority were not. For example the short date ie. 04 Feb 2004 is acceptable in References as per your link to the MOS:dates, also a large portion of the links that were de-linked is a matter of opinion not an rule nor requirement. I reverted the entire edit after thought, as I normally would only "revert" the problem areas; however there was so much from those four articles that, with a heavy heart, I ask that if you decide there are portions in these articles that need to be changed as your original change, that the burden of going through individually should be on you. I am not trying to rifle your feathers, but I also don't feel that what was done was correct and that I should have to pick through and spend my time fixing what someones else has --in good faith-- "broken". Please, keep in mind that again, I point out, no intention in upsetting you as a lot of the work you do is needed and thankless yet appreciated. Sincerely speednat (talk) 17:31, 21 March 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 O1oface -- O1oface (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification

The clarification request involving you has been archived. The original comments made by the arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Aadhaar

Hello Ohconfucius,

My comments of your Aadhaar edits:

1. I agree with your date format. I had originally written dates as 25-Dec-2012. However, someone just changed it into 25-12-2014 etc. Please modify the date format. 2. Please understand that Indian unit of counting 'Crore' equals 10 million. It is important in Indian context, hence it should not be deleted nor both be in millions as it makes no sense. 3. Wikipedia is American, hence American English has been preferred. Changing it to British English does not add any value to its contents. 4. Smaller changes are always better as it helps decide to retain or to undo the changed part. 5. Aadhaar is a stable version that should not be disturbed. Updation and expansion will add lot of value than just format-changes. 6. Please discuss on talk page before making changes.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course content is important, but many editors contribute in different ways. It is essential that efforts to ensure consistent formatting are not derided. Formatting imparts a more professional feel to an article even though the content or grammar may be wanting. For example, a 100kB article that is unformatted and in one huge paragraph is a turn-off, however coherent and well-written the text may be. Not just that, some of your highly unorthodox formatting makes the article difficult to parse. For example, your extensive use of bold lettering is visually disruptive. Also the dashes employed throughout the article are stylistically wrong and impart ambiguity: About Rs. 35 billion (Rs. 3500 crore) has been spent totally on Aadhaar program from inception (January – 2009) till September – 2013 with enrollment of 500 million (50 crore) persons.) (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia is indeed American, but most articles that are non-American have non-American spellings and dmy date formats. These are rules which form part of our style guidelines. If you find that notion strange, please re-examine your insistence on keeping the mention of the very non-American "crore", which few outside the Indian sub-continent know or care or can relate to. I will therefore reinstate all the changes I made but leave your precious crore as they were. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Lannister three.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lannister three.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  Sandstein  21:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Another move request regarding Ukraine and Crimea

Hello, you participated in a previous move request regarding Crimea and Ukraine, so I thought you might be interested in this new request that is intended to address objections to the previous one. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

cannot exactly agree that section was unhelpful ...

My section was up for only six hours, hardly enough time to be vetted properly. But I will not protest for now that you made my section hidden. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Script issue

Hi, TRM has pointed out that LA is being removed from categories. User_talk:Tony1#Script_error. Tony (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's that "California" is being removed from "Los Angeles, California" in all circumstances, including the categories, and that's causing the cats to go red. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, now disabled. Will work an a patch. In the meantime, it would make sense to rename the category. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm ... any idea how long it might have been doing this for? Do I go back and audit? Tony (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• There are potentially three actresses affected, three artists, one musician. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Con Could you please check that the refs. are OK on the "Lupton family" page cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.196.112 (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demerara rebellion of 1823

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Demerara rebellion of 1823 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 Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1931–32 South Africa rugby union tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melrose (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear con I am sincerely hoping you can check the refs. at the page "Lupton family" Thanks so much if you can do this Mike

Links in articles to 'Irish people' page

Hi, I was just in discussion with user Snappy concerning biographical pages of Irish people, particularly members of the Oireachtas. He says that you have begun removing these links, and he is now following your example. I wonder, was this the result of some discussion? I can see that generally members of a legislature are citizens of the state concerned, even if there is no legal requirement for them to be such. Hence one could argue that the link to the nationality page is superfluous. But if one eliminates that link in an article, should one eliminate the article's membership of the WP category, too, to be consistent? And if one does that, surely the category 'Irish people' will become useless? I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts! Harfarhs (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles

Please take a look at Dick Helander, Nancy Eriksson and Steffo Törnquist. I plan to nominate them all for DYK in the next coming days.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Malfunction

Someone just reported the same issue as last week. Thx. User_talk:Tony1#Your_script_is_misbehaving Tony (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• It was fixed in the interim. I repeated the edit from your starting point and the result was satisfactory. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

1978 Kangaroo tour

Hello and thank you for this edit. But I wanted to check, is including the day of the week alongside the tour match's dates such a no-no? I don't see the harm in readers seeing that a game took place on a Wesneday as opposed to a Saturday, and any effect that may have on team performances, crowd figures, etc.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any specific rule against using DOTW, but there might be. On the other hand, I would note that the overwhelming practice in the 'pedia is to rely simply on dates, unless the DOTW has some special significance. Having said that, however, the real reason DOTW was removed was because these occupied a template field that is mostly found in citation templates, where DOTW cause problems with template output, and are thus removed by script by default. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So in this instance there is actually no real reason for them not to be there. But if I replace them, they'll be unintentionally removed again someday. This is less than ideal isn't it?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The documentation at Template:Rugbyleaguebox doesn't tell you to put in the DOTW, tells you instead to insert "Date of the match. Format: D Month YYYY", so that's a pretty strong sign it's not meant to be there. Lua now renders templates much faster, but is less tolerant of what the field can contain. The only way the DOTW can be incorporated so that scripts/bots do not disturb them in future is to rename the field, to "datez", for example, or to add a |dotw= field. With only 242 transclusions, it's workable, but will probably have to be done manually because otherwise a bot will replace all "|date=" parameters (or insert "|dotw=") without regard to where the field is in the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Flags

This is a tricky issue on football articles, you're probably best off seeking wider input at WT:FOOTY. GiantSnowman 10:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing I will say - flags should not be removed from {{Football squad player}}, the use of flags there is clearly defined. GiantSnowman 11:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England national rugby union team (sevens), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Powell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2010–11 Hamburger SV season may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}
• |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Invader (artist)

The article Invader (artist) 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Invader (artist) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demerara rebellion of 1823

The article Demerara rebellion of 1823 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Demerara rebellion of 1823 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Flags

There is clear opposition to your actions, and in fact no clear policy to support them either. I suggest you revert your most recent edits to football articles. One way or the other, the flags will return to those articles, but I'm giving you this chance to save face by self-reverting. – PeeJay 19:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just saw it on the current PL season article and I dont like! QED237 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237:Sure, my edit deprived the article of a lot of colour. Why don't you start colouring in your wikitables, then? ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

PeeJay, you do not have consensus to go around inserting masses of flags into articles—especially if they withhold the country-name. You need to seek that consensus. Tony (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether you guys like it or not is not the issue. The issue is if the use or removal are complaint with policies and guidelines – the fact that their use there is non-compliant with MOS:FLAG is something you do not seem to dispute. If you go around reinserting them after they have been removed, your actions could be considered disruptive if it is done on any scale. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no guidelines to support the removal of these flags. The only guideline anyone has quoted to me that bears any relevance is that the flags should perhaps be accompanied by the name of the country to which they relate, but that guideline needs re-examining by the MOS people anyway. The fact of the matter is, there were no grounds to remove the flags in the first place, and any reverting I do would not be disruptive, it would simply be me asserting my right to revert per WP:BRD. – PeeJay 11:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of the sort of edit you are arguing over? --John (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990), 2013–14 Premier League. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I've reverted your latest edit of the ManU-Arsenal article because no consensus has been reached in the discussion at WP:FOOTY and I think you should wait until this has been achieved before trying to impose your view on the article. I note that you have performed what amount to four edit reverts yesterday and today. I think this is out of order given that the matter is subject to discussion. Please be patient. GnGn (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Ohconfucius, don't template the regulars. Second, do you actually understand what edit warring means? I have acted in accordance with WP:BRD, whereas you have removed content without the support of any actual policy and then re-reverted me in contravention of the procedure recommended at WP:BRD. So yeah, you might want to avoid boomeranging yourself here. – PeeJay 22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I presume you are aware that you have been officially warned about edit-warring and you escaped a block because your fourth revert was more than 24 hours after the first three. Re WP:BRD, I draw your attention to the "discuss" criterion which clearly states: "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion". Which means that your original removal of the flags was correctly reverted by PeeJay pending the outcome of the discussion; and that remains unresolved. GnGn (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Olympus scandal

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Olympus scandal 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 LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GnGn (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.