User talk:Ohconfucius/archive32

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• I think not, because that action is performed by dashes.js – a very useful script that is no longer maintained.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On 13 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Invader (artist), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Invader's cousin is Mr. Brainwash? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Invader (artist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• When I click on the scripts button nothing happens. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @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)[reply]

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

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

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]
• @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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • @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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any update? If you like, I might be able to make the edits and have you review them. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed structure is reasonable and arguably better than the existing, I'm just a little uncertain about the three headings you have created under that structure. I've started rearranging the various blocks of text, and will finish it off once I have worked out where all the changes need to be. OTOH, I would not object if you made the changes. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the review page, that was only an example and isn't required here. What I recommended was grouping like material with like, which doesn't really require major changes. All I care about, in terms of passing the article, is seeing the Clearmountain material in one single paragraph or in multiple connecting paragraphs rather than spread out into different sections that have no connection. I gave a small example of how to do this on the talk page. You really don't have to create a different structure, just merge the Clearmountain material so that it appears in one place. I used the example of four separate paragraphs because it seemed to work with what you already had. Obviously, you don't have to do it this way. But right now, with the current structure, there doesn't seem to be a rhyme nor a reason for the way Clearmountain is mentioned. You can come up with an entirely different way of doing it, just make it easy for the reader to follow the narrative in a consistent manner. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me on the GA review page when you are finished editing so that I can close out the review. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @Intelligentguy89:You were clearly watching the general election article, and you saw the consensus developing on that content. The view was that the information was mere news and was unencyclopaedic. Because of the fundamental principal that a person is innocent until proven guilty, those statistics are meaningless at best, and scandal-mongering at worst. That pretty much rules it out for all articles. I therefore see no need to restart the discussion for every article you decide to spam it to. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change lakhs and crores into hundred-thousands or m/b/trillions on India-related articles. The former are perfectly accepted in Indian English, which is what these articles are written in. An India-related number in m/b/trillions (Rs. 27 billion) is largely indecipherable to the Indian reader and forces him to convert mentally into lakhs and crores.—indopug (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Indopug:WP articles are not specifically targeted at Indian readers, but speakers of English all over the world, many of whom are not native-speakers, and the vast majority come from countries where notions like lakh and crore are utterly alien. Too bad it's a headache for Indian audience, but Wikipedia articles are not just for them.Please don't insist on this parochial approach to editing. Try in.wikipedia.org. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to the portion of ACCESS that backs your views? Or any policy that says that Wikipedia is not for the 300 million Indian speakers of English?—indopug (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia is for all English speakers and does not cater exclusively to Indian speakers of English, but not having lakh and crores doesn't exclude them, it merely includes all the rest of the world who are clueless about crore and lakh. It should be pretty obvious. That's why there Indian Wikipedia and Italian WIkipedia; there is no American-English Wikipedia nor an Indian-English Wikipedia. We do not place Indian readers above the others here on English Wikipedia; Indian readers are no more equal than others. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug, thanks for your care in this matter. But your point that it's "perfectly acceptable in Indian English" would hold water if anyone else understood it. They don't. And en.WP is for a world readership. Please don't make our articles on India-related subjects—almost all of them non-technical, too—less accessible to the vast majority of our readers who don't understand these numerators. Tony (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no "Indian" Wikipedia, because there is no language called Indian. What there are, are some dozen+ Wikipedias in different Indian languages, none of which are easily accessible to Indian-English–educated Indians like myself and millions of others.

In any case, a more comprehensive and elegant solution is to use both lakhs and millions. (For eg: here, "₹35–40 lakh (approximately US$735,000–840,000")) Also check out Template:INRConvert.

Tony, I understand what you're saying, but as I've shown, there's a solution that caters to both. And my issue is mainly with using m/billions along with Rupees, because it is utterly infuriating.—indopug (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The important point I was trying to make is that English Wikipedia's all-inclusiveness – what I call accessibility. Certain things are made universal, or simplified by necessity. Sometimes, as in this case, plain English is what's needed. Using the conversion template provides the foreign reader with a certain reference point, which is good, but does little to solve the problem of those who want to find out how many zeros it is in local currency/quantity. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a significant problem; at worst, you can always have an explanatory footnote: "1 lakh = 100,000".

By the way, you haven't addressed how this contradicts WP:ACCESS, a guideline "primarily intended to assist those with disabilities".—indopug (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised that we have a MoS guideline on the matter: "Use the Indian numbering system of lakhs and crores. Give their equivalents in millions/billions in parentheses. For monetary figures, use the Indian numbering system but also give their US dollar equivalents in parentheses."—indopug (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as both appear. And I believe that almost everyone outside India (perhaps even some inside India) would prefer the international system to be main, with lakh and crore in parentheses. But on that they're probably willing to bend. Are you seriously suggesting that Indian readers of English can't cope with the international system? Tony (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely painful when paired with Rupees. Rs. 50 billion, for example, is totally counter-intuitive. I have take a minute to convert that to crores before I get a sense of scale. Another thing is these figures can become famous thanks to the media. For eg: one telecom scandal cost Rs 1.76 lakh crores, an iconic figure. I wouldn't have that as Rs 1.76 trillion, just as we wouldn't have "11 September terrorist attacks" in a BritEng article.

For other currencies, like US$, only m/billions need to be used.—indopug (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A trillion rupees – nine zeros is also iconic.

  There's nothing counter-intuitive about "western" notation of millions, billions, trillions... zeros are regularly grouped, in threes; separators in Indian numbers are not regular. For those like me who are familiar, it's one of the easiest conversions to do, easier than lakh alone or crore alone; but most others seeing "Rs 1.76 lakh crores" will do a triple take, and still say "WTF?". They have to look up lakh and then crore, and then count the combined zeros. Don't get me talking about those Indian commas that follow your lakh/crore numbering convention – those are definitely not allowed here, however hard it is for you folk to convert. Wikipedia doesn't revolve around Indian readers even if the subject is Indian. If you can cope with the notion of $1 billion, you can cope with Rs. 1 billion.

  And just why wouldn't we have "11 September terrorist attacks" in a British English article? It's perfectly natural; the Americans don't have a monopoly on date formats. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I suggested a new structure in the talk page of the article. Please tell us your idea. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every matches of hockey coverage are split by a horizontal line and you remove it, also remove is nations that player representing, we will revert your edit and making necessary changes. Advice also that you don't make blind edit. Thank you. --Aleenf1 14:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aleenf1: WTF? Is that what all your reverts are about? You undo numerous changes that bring compliance with the various sections of the manual of Style just for the lines? The horizontal line is deprecated. Please go and seek a change to the guideline before you accuse me of making blind edits. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it cannot be use! You can refer to FIFA World Cup articles, some more you remove the flag for nation that player representing. The script may assisting you but doesn't mean you can use blindly. --Aleenf1 15:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been edited and design in a certatin way for quite a while. I understand you use the site rules as your editing reason, but when you want to make such a radical change in so many related articles, I think a discussion between the main editors interested in such articles should have been iniciated. Everyone has reasons to keep them like they are or to change them, and this back and forth editing is completely avoidable. We think that this is a huge change that differs with how other sport related articles are design. And again, as I said before, I don't see you erasing flags and links in FIFA World Cup articles, where they have been in use for quite a while. The flags and links help the reader to understand better what they are reading, and to go to check other information. If a competition held in a city/country doesn't have the link to any of them, it makes no sense to me to have to write the name of the city/country if I want to know something more about it.--M&m89 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@M&m89:As I said, just because you are used to things being a certain way because you have been editing in ignorance of policies and guidelines doesn't mean it's acceptable. Policies and guidelines are to preserve a similar "feel" in articles across the encyclopaedia. Consensus at an article level does not trump policy. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you telling us that we revert blindly, then how about you blatantly remove the horizontal line without discussion? I don't see is an improvement, is more difficult to read! --Aleenf1 14:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleenf1:You may already be aware that I raised the issue about the horizontal lines at WT:LAYOUT. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and by reading over there it seems that removing them is not a RULE and they are "allowed"... Kante4 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the code so that the horiz line is no longer removed systematically. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohconfucius, I noteced you had been removing flag icons recently from several national basketball tems in similar edits such as this one. I do not agree at all that flags should be removed from the club rosters indicating the country the club is from per WP:WORDPRECEDENT. Do you have a consensus for the removal? FkpCascais (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP DELETING CONTENT JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE IT. If you do not agree, why don't you just go ahead and remove all soccer (football) flag icons at the football national team sites? Stephreef (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I found!!! "Examples of acceptable exceptions (of when flag icons CAN be usen in infoboxes) include military conflict infobox templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games." --M&m89 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @M&m89:Yes, but none of the articles you guys are complaining about here belong to those categories; I'm not removing relevant flags from those articles for the very reason that their use is supported by guidelines; flags' use is generally complaint based on my observations. I have also not removed any flags from national sports team articles where they indicate national teams have been playing other national teams, for example results tables – that use is clearly sanctioned by guidelines. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you, Ohconfucius, if you had consensus with your edits and you failed to respond besides being around here making edits. I conclude that you don´t have consensus and I will restore all flags in squad templates indicating the league the clubs play in per WP:WORDPRECEDENT. You failed to gain support at Football Project and now you go to other sports making same the kind of edit. If you remove the flags again I will report you. Seek consensus first. FkpCascais (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made good mantainance edits, but as you mixed them with the contoversial flag removal, you make it almost impossible now to restore flags only to squad clubs without reverting you totally. Sorry. FkpCascais (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @FkpCascais: Sports pages are often resplendent with flags; they are often overused. People, probably yourself included, get too comfortable with the convenience, the sea of colours, and of apparently displaying certain notions that it may represent, or unwary of the boundaries of when that use is agreed to be beneficial and encyclopaedic. WP:WORDPRECEDENT indeed lays ground for the use of flags as in sports articles. But I ask you to consider carefully what the guideline says in its entirety and not just that one sentence that appears to grant dispensation for blanket use in sports articles. Please then look at the exact nature of use to which they are put in the articles in question, and ask if each instance of such use is indeed encyclopaedic. In fact, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons advises prudent and balanced use of all icons, not just flags – used only where necessary, flags impart information; in excess, they clutter and distract.

  When I saw your original message, I thought you were taking issue with one removal that I have since reinstated – one or two similar ones may have escaped. Looking at those articles you reverted, I see many flag icons used purely decoratively, that is to say a flag "does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function". In the context of national team articles, clearly the only nationality of importance or relevance is of the country whose team it is. Nationalities may in addition be relevant in tables where other national teams are involved. Of course, coaches' and chairmen's nationalities are of no relevance whatsoever – there seems to be no disagreement on this point, yet flags have multiplied in sporting articles against coaches' and chairmen's names too, like mushrooms after a rainstorm. The way flags have been used here as you insist seemed unclear or contrived, and far removed from indicating "representative nationality". Players are naturally employed by a club based in one country or another. There seems to be little connection between the national team and the nationality of the club to which the individual player is signed. No such league club can be said to represent the country, or at least no such valid connection that would perhaps justify use of the flags has been demonstrated in the article. As such even mentioning or displaying the country in the article appears unnecessary; borderline encyclopaedic. Guidelines are applicable to all articles across all project spaces, and there is no opt-out for such global consensus nor can it be trumped by an individual project. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the wording on the use of flags is not very clear and gives stace for varius interpretations, and I am also aware people have been abusing the use of flags in several cases. I also agree with many of the flag removal you made (infoboxes for exemple), however I do think you´ll need a broader consensus from the removal from the squad templates for teams. It is not a direct representation of nationality, but it is of the nationality of the club they play, and that info is helpfull. For instance, when you look at the squad and the teams they play in, you´ll often find the flags very usefull, even if relatively well familiarised with basketball. By just looking at the flags you can immediatelly tell which players play in most important leagues. Often club names are far from being immediatelly recognisable, but flags give you an immediate help. I know it is not an ideal solution because of the problems I rememeber we already discussed at WP:FOOTY, but we´ll have to work out a solution somehow and at FOOTY you also failed to obtein support for flag removal. FkpCascais (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very confusing to readers. It's like you have to be an en.WP editor in the know to interpret what these flags mean (player's nationality? team's nationality?)—and that's if you know which flag is which. When are we going to see this from the readers' perspective? Tony (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see how it is confusing to the reader. If you are looking at a national team's article, you know everyone in the squad have that nationality, otherwise they would not be playing for that team. If a column is called Club Nat, in which other way can it be interpreted other than Club Nationality? I agree completely with the idea that it helps you see in which league they play, if they emigrated from their home country club or if they play in the local league, etc. And if by any chance, someone doen't know the flag, they click on it and they go to the country's article. Even when I wasn't an editor I knew what to think out of those flags. I can't see your position strong enough to erase those flags entirely. --M&m89 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On some occasions we have to avoid the flags. You've mentioned the country and it was enough. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but that is just your oppinion. This is not that simple. Clubs represent leagues they play in, and leagues are directly linked with countries. The vast majority of sport websites uses flags in that same circunstances, and obviously they use it with reason. See for exemple here where clubs are clearly accompanied by flags of the country they are from, or a broader table of a national team as here. The flags are corectly used, and your wish to remove them is just a strict missinterpretation of MOSFLAG which in absolutelly no way helps wp readers. It would be good and helpfull to have a centralised discussion on this in order to archive consensus and perhaps a change in wording about FLAG, but that discussion needs to have broad participation from people from several WikiProjects. FkpCascais (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but OccultZone, I think you didn´t understood the exact place we are talking about flags here. It is in the squad templates indicating the country of the club players play in. It is in squad lists such as Serbia national football team, now same applied to other squad lists of national teams of other sports (in this case it was basketball national teams that Ohconfucius removed them and we disputed it. FkpCascais (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had understood, and it is still not needed because you've mentioned the team's name. Furthermore you cannot link same team on wikipedia for more than 3 times(that is, one in section, two in infoboxes/persondata). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M&m, you wrote: "I really can't see how it is confusing to the reader. If you are looking at a national team's article, you know everyone in the squad have that nationality, otherwise they would not be playing for that team." Are you sure? My understanding is that there's a lively international trade of players for top teams. Tony (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @FkpCascais: I'm glad you acknowledge that flags are overused; if only we could agree on how and to what extent. Saying the overuse is "in several cases" would grossly understate the issue, which I see as considerably larger. There seems to be a fair amount of "if [anotherproject] puts them there, why can't they be used in the same way in [myproject]". Then, there is the "other websites do it that way" argument. Fact is, Wikipedia is not a sports website, and our styles are rules for flag and image usage is supposed to be different, reflecting our different missions and audiences. I have noticed editors in sports projects sometimes follow and increasingly apply flags for purposes that are unencyclopaedic and contrary to guidelines. Editors take a liberal interpretation of the rules concerning one single aspect of usage, or choose to apply flags for a reason best described as "convenience" – as a first resort rather than the last. Templates with facility to add flag icons have seen unchecked proliferation; icons are used because they can be. I can quote you plenty of examples I have come across since I became interested in correcting flag abuse. The lead to MOS:ICON summarises it thus: "The use of icons in Wikipedia encyclopedic project content, mainly lists, tables, infoboxes and navboxes can provide useful visual cues, but can also present a number of problems.". These pitfalls are elaborated as:

• Do not use icons in general article prose
• Encyclopedic purpose
• Do not use too many icons
• Do not repurpose icons beyond their legitimate scope
• Do not distort icons
• Do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas
• Remember accessibility for the visually impaired
• Avoid flag icons in infoboxes
• Accompany flags with country names

Leaving aside whether we should flag club nationalities, there is for example no benefit in using flags (and flags only) to give the location of a stadium where a match was played, as was done here, or where a tournament was hosted, or indeed any other variation of location. Yet, as we see from this, WP:WORDPRECENDENT gets misconstrued as a valid rationale to place these flags there. This is ignoring the second part of the introductory phrase of MOS:ICON whilst emphasising the first part. It certainly ignores MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names. If that is a valid rationale to be employed alone, there really is no stopping where one is allowed to place the flags. Using flags for team managers' nationalities (as here and here) is irrelevant at best; there is the indiscriminate flagging of presidents and physiotherapists[4]. What other sites do is their own affair, and it's not for us to follow their styles – for there are as many styles as there are sports websites. Our guidelines are for the whole encyclopaedia and not just for WP:BASKETBALL.

Club nationality is a fact that is almost never relevant, except for the club concerned. The assertion that "Clubs represent leagues they play in, and leagues are directly linked with countries" is rather contrived. Yes, clubs form part of a country's league, but they rarely "represent" the country. The contrived argument akin to saying "[Sportsman] endorses [Volvo], and [Volvo] is a Swedish company owned by the [Chinese], so the fact that [Sportsman] works for the [Chinese] is relevant to the article about [Sportsman's] national football team". But assuming that even if one wishes to find out in which country Leo Messi's current club is based, it's more effective for the reader to click on the club link, than rely on a flag icon that you can click on or hover over. Anyone interested in the specifics would go directly to that club's article (and avoid the largely irrelevant country that the flag points to). Only they would not need to play at "know your flag". -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your module is working anymore? I had never used it before, and let me know if you can make it work. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't tried running it in a long time, but it works as far as I am aware. You need to load it into AWB by choosing the "Make module" command from the menu from within AWB. Copy the entire code starting from "Wikifunctions.Parse" right through to the last curly bracket, and paste it into the window of the module, then save. You'll know soon enough if it doesn't load properly, in which case let me know. I use a Mac, so I'll have to find a machine with which to run diagnosis if it doesn't. In any event, I know for sure User:Ohconfucius/AWB modules/dmy works, and it incorporates all of the former script plus date format-alignment to dmy. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I am having problem with AWB due to recent update. Any edits that I have made or I am making at this moment, I made them from computer. My computer's AWB version is not allowing any other module to work. While my laptop that had the latest version of AWB about 1-2 weeks ago, now it requires update. Nothing is working on that laptop related to AWB. Issue is presented on the noticeboard of AWB as well, and it was originally raised by other editor. So maybe in few days or weeks, I might able to confirm. But then again, if your module actually works it can be benefit for thousands of pages. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what a bummer! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know, that I tested and it is working, had to remove source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the exchange on Batty's talk. I'm glad he got you sorted. Communication isn't my strongest, but I did mention "Wikifunctions.Parse" to "last curly bracket"; never thought you'd take the entire code from edit mode. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Goingbatty is a helpful and productive member. I liked that the module efficiently support Wikipedia:OVERLINK. Excellent! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yamaha NS-10 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yamaha NS-10 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 Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Britain women's national ice hockey team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull (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) 08:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply completely deleting a paragraph without any replacement doesn't count as "simplify" for me. Are you also on the payroll?--Kulandru mor (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What I deleted was original research, classic case. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohc: yes, you should not "play at silly buggers". Which includes calling others' logic and arguments "absurd". Now please note: I would not bother commenting here if I thought you were in anyway malicious, a useless jerk, or a total idiot. But please also consider that some of your comments are, indeed, "ill-judged". Your bandying about of "absurd", for one thing, and also your summarization that "JJ thinks his argument is perfect...." As to the latter, no, I don't think my argument is "perfect". I do think that your understanding of my argument is faulty, but certainly that is correctable. As correcting this would greatly facilitate the discussion at OVERLINK (which you seem inclined to continue), I ask: would it be worthwhile to attempt this? I think I could explain reductio ad absurdum to your satisfaction, but should I? Would you attend? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thousands of pages have been changed with your scripts. I liked that you are well dedicated and you never give up. Thanks a lot! Hope to see more innovations from you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• cheers, mate! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind not doing your delinking efforts on the OTD pages? Some of theme are fine, but for others you're introducing redirects where they're not necessary, and you're also removing links that are customary to have. For example, Second World War redirects to World War II, so there was no need to remove the piped link, and July 3 should be linked, even though we don't normally do that in article pages. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 17:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article LS3/5A you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:LS3/5A 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 Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I notice you've made a number of edits using a script to articles about national roller derby teams, including removing color boxes from infoboxes, and I'm wondering if you can point me to the policy that suggests doing that, since I can't find it. I note that articles on national men's hockey teams, such as Canada men's national ice hockey team - not to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFF but I imagine those articles are more heavily viewed, and certainly if this was a breach of style they would have been removed there, too, no? You've also changed date formats per MOS, even though MOS clearly states that the existing format (month date year) is acceptable, and given that a) these articles include teams for nations where the original format is preferred and b) the sport as a whole may be of greater interest within North American than without, I wanted to check in for clarifications from you before I reverted some of these edits. I can see the removal of linking country names (while I guess that people should be able to understand what Canada is, for example, I'm not sure I agree with it but I could see MOS applying there) and certainly fixing the dashes. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Echoedmyron:I'm not aware that I changed date formats for any roller derby article that I ought not to have changed. I went back to check on my recent history, and saw they involved only all those cases where it is mandated by nationality. My interest is in date alignment and I normally do not touch the dates if they are uniform. I acknowledge to aligning dates in Team Canada, but you will see from the preceding version that dmy format was clearly prevalent. I'll happily put align the date format to whatever you feel the format should be. Note that MOSNUM states Canadian articles may employ either dmy or mdy formats (but not both within the confined of an article). As to the changes to Canada men's national ice hockey team, it's never a good assumption that if nobody has previously fixed an article it doesn't warrant fixing. As Wikipedia is a work in progress and there are no deadlines, changes come as and when editors get around to dealing with it. The article was clearly overlinked (and incidentally there is an overuse of flags, IMHO). It's completely superfluous to link a country (or province) when the town/city situated two characters re spaces away is also linked; whatever was germane about the city link has a much lesser degree of relevance. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nowhere else in the body of the Team Canada article is Canada itself now linked. I also note that when you did the edit on Roller Derby Brasil you did not de-link Brazil in the first sentence. That inconsistency is what confused me. And I have lived in Canada for 33 years, and have never met a single person, nor read a single newspaper article etc that used that clunky DMY format, fwiw. I think I was also pretty clear, in my mention of WP:OTHERSTUFF, that I'm well aware that one article does not dictate policy for all, but was merely pointing out further inconsistencies.Echoedmyron (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil probably can be unlinked. ;-) It and Canada are well known geographical locations, and may be relevant to the subject. But such a relationship is a large umbrella one. Few people visiting such articles are likely to want to click on the country link. As to the dates, as I said, I am not out to create conflicts but generally just follow what's there. I can assure you there are US as well as Canadian editors who very much prefer dmy, but I'd have no issue with flipping all dates to mdy. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you amend your script to take note of when {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} is used in an article? This change swapped some {{citation}} templates to {{cite book}}, though this is not often an issue, when Harvard templates are being used in footnotes, if these supplementary references are included, then most editors would be confused as to why the automated links would fail to work. For this reason, when consistently using Harvard style, I would prefer all citations stick to the standard citation template rather than the derivatives that do not support this cross-linking functionality. I'll swap them back for the moment, feel free to discuss on the article talk page if you feel there is some guideline that needs to be reviewed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All other citations used the Citation Style 1 templates, thus Further reading should use them as well since they have different formats. Those two entries do not have any links— I have CSS that shows me this —and if they did need to be linked then CS1 templates can do this by use of |ref=harv. In my opinion this was a valid change. --  Gadget850 ^talk 13:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that hardly anyone understands to use ref=harv for an article like this. I agree that for one off footnotes, both cite news and cite web are in use with one overlooked cite book, though for all major references, citation is the default. The guidelines are effectively that where a citation style is in use for an article, this should not be swapped to another without a consensus. In addition the section was marked with {{bots|deny=Citation bot}}, which would be a good clue that using tools to automatically change citations in the same way that the Citation bot does in that section, would be an issue.

I believe it would be a good thing for your personal scripts to take note of where the bots|deny template is being used, but this is a question of deciding what good practice ought to be. If you would like to suggest another template which can give assurance that your tools do not do the same thing as Citation bot, then I'll gladly add that to the article to avoid future confusion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fæ: I don't understand how harvard templates work either. It's beyond the scope of any of my scripts to change the types of citation templates used, so not "{{nobots}}" recognition would have any impact. The part of my edit that swapped out the {{citation}} template was manual. It was motivated by the indication of a harvard citation error because no footnotes or refs were pointing to them. The errors become apparent if you install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js into your skin (monobook or vector etc). I don't know if there are other preferred ways to sort out the problem, but swapping out the template eliminated the error message. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an over interpretation of what an error is. The citation template automatically includes a Harvard reference link, whereas other templates require an extra parameter to handle it; having this flagged as an error seems a bit bizarre. --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue is that CS1 and {{citation}} are two different styles. They are similar but use different punctuation, thus mixing them creates an inconsistent style. HarvErrors.js is a handy tool to detect when the links used by Parenthetical referencing are broken, or in this case, not needed. --  Gadget850 ^talk 11:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've caught me in a work exhaustion-induced grump – eg this revert of your change – but you might want to be more careful with the changes you're making – eg this revert that another editor had to make recently at the same article. I'm not sure why you're delinking rock music, for instance, but you're then leaving behind an incorrect, capitalised "Rock" every time. JG66 (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxford University Quidditch Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bangor. 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) 08:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copyedits at Benjamín Galván Gómez's article. Glad to see you on my Watchlist. Happy editing! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohconfucius. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of software that uses Subversion, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Apache Subversion has an article, and this is a list about applications that interact with it. To AfD? Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, thanks for your recent edit of the article on Bhaktivinoda Thakur. I noticed, however, that you've also converted it to the British spelling system. I find it slightly problematic, though, because (1) most, if not, all of the article's sources use American spelling, and (2) not implying any ownership, I happen to be the article's main contributor and am used to the American spelling system. With still a lot of work ahead, ensuring spelling consistency will now be an unnecessary challenge for me. Do you think this justifies my request to please help revert the article back to American spelling without undoing your many fine tweaks in it? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cinosaur:I put the spelling to British spelling because of the subject's nationality. With the exception of quotations, how the article itself is written or formatted doesn't have to mirror the spellings used in the sources. If there are any quotes in the article, the script should pass these by and not make changes to the spelling of Americanised words therein. As I understand that maintaining consistent spelling is highly desirable going forwards even as the article is being developed, this article's tagging will enable a bot to come by at some later date to make all spellings consistent. As such, I hope you will continue working on the article. I would have no problem if you were to revert my changes for the time being whilst leaving the {{use dmy dates}} and {{EngvarB}} templates in place. That way, once the article has become stable, the article's dates and spelling can be suitably flipped as and when a maintenance programme is in place. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, Ohconfucius. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Naim NAIT 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 TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An amendment request regarding the Falun Gong 2 case has been closed and archived. The Arbitration Committee has taken no action based on this request, however all users involved are advised to edit within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that this "Script-assisted" edit by you broke the ISBN of a reference by changing the hyphen character used. I've fixed this particular case but I suggest you look into what happened and see if there is anything you can change to try to stop it happening again. It doesn't seem to be a universal problem, similar edits like this and this didn't cause any issues with the ISBNs in those articles.TuxLibNit (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @TuxLibNit: Thanks for letting me know. I don't understand why it happens and doesn't. I suspect it may have something to do with the disposition of the hyphens amongst the numbers. I'll try and get that script, which isn't mine, looked at. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Naim NAIT 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:Naim NAIT for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hans Larive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soest. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have just partly reverted your script-assisted edit to Theobald Jones.

Most of your changes were trivial, but one them was not: [[Member of Parliament|Members of Parliament]] (MPs) → members of parliament (MPs).

That was wrong on two accounts. First, "Member of Parliament" is a proper noun in this usage, because it is a specific job title. (See the UK Parliament's own website).

Secondly, the link is to the article about the position to which he was elected. It is a directly relevant link, and shoukd not have been unlinked.

Please amend your script to prevent this happening again, and fix any other such changes you have made. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In that usage, I believe "members" should be downcased because it is non-specific, as plural. Seeing as member of parliament article is generic but with more specific sections within it, I think it would have been better stating "elected to the British House of Commons. regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is a bit silly. Being plural does not make it non-specific. It remains a specific job title.

Jones was not elected to the "British House of Commons", which is an ambiguous term (it could also refer to the House of Commons of Great Britain, a separate body abolished at the end of 1800), and the word "British" is non-neutral in an Irish context. He was elected specifically to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, which is linked unpiped in the lede.

It is entirely to appropriate phrasing to use the specific job title at that point in the article, and per the UK Parliament's own website, it is a capitalsied term. The fact that the linked article is generic is a different issue: the text displayed should be refelect the use in the article on Jones.

Again, please remove this behaviour from your script. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected about the entity. I'm glad the correct entity is already linked to in the lead. That obviates the need for us to argue about technicalities. With that link, the value to the reader of linking to a generic topic on MPs is significantly diminished.  Ohc ^¡digame! 12:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, member of parliament should generally be downcased, unless there's a special justification. It matters nought that the parliament's own website upcases. Of course they do: it's called vanity capitalisation, and is now becoming distinctly old-fashioned. I'm sure you'll find every single job position advertised as upcased—unfortunate habit. You'll find that news reports of MPs and parliament are tending to avoid upcasing, as do many books and other highly valued texts. This is just what New Hart's Rules and CMOS say: basically, minimise capping. "Member of parliament" is no more a proper noun than "politician". Are you suggesting we cap that?<n>Now, concerning the linking: I'm inclined to leave the script as it is, given that MP and parliament are both commonplace dictionary words—hardly technical terms or so abstruse or arcane as to need explicit crutch for readers. Tony (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1, this "vanity capitalisation" as you call it has been in use for centuries in UK media, not just on the Parliament's own website. The capitalised usage is part of the BBC style guide, and it is routine in The Daily Telegraph, the biggest-selling broadsheet.

It is is proper noun because it refers to a specific job. The USA has many state governors, but the usage for any given state is capitalised, eg. "Governor of Ohio"

Ohconfucius, the link to the correct parliament is a different matter to the link to the role within it. The fact that our current article also includes coverage of other related topics does not undermine its importance as the place where the Westminster MP's role is described.

So ... will you agree to desist from this mass-unlinking of Member of Parliament, or do I take this to an RFC? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: Overlinking(at most) is being discussed on ANI right now. If you haven't been informed, I have mentioned both of you there. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It is is proper noun because it refers to a specific job."—nope: that doesn't make it a proper noun. And do you appreciate the difference between proper nouns and proper names? Tony (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you,[5] I've been delinking overlinked or unnecessary geolocations on persondata, now there was a discussion on my talk page. No idea that how we can ignore persondata or if you had any issues with delinking on persondata, you can inform me. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a discussion, check Wikipedia talk:Persondata#Overlinking in Persondata. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC now at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Should_Persondata_template_be_removed_from_articles.3F. Possibly, you won't need any change to your code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit caused display problems and an empty citation in Paddy Chew. This was the fix. Be careful out there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you recent edits on Singapore Math. Again. The change you are pursuing requires consensus. Please take it to the talk page. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• danielkueh: I have left the countries linked per your wishes, but as to the other style changes, further consensus isn't required. Consensus is implicit because the changes are to make the article conform to style guidelines. Singapore uses spellings which are very similar to British English, and date formats are dmy. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title of that article is "Singapore math," with "math" being an American spelling variant. It makes no sense to use American spelling for the title and British spelling for the main text. In fact, the term "Singapore math" originated in the United States, so this is not a clear cut issue of "strong national ties." Also, please read the article AND actually learn about the topic FIRST before changing it. And yes, you do need to seek consensus on the article's talk page like every other WP editor before making (in your case, imposing) significant global changes of that kind. You were bold and I reverted. So follow WP:BRD and take this to the article's talk page. I will respond to you there. Thank you. danielkueh (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Naim NAIT you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Naim NAIT 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 TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Naked ai weiwei.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. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your GA nomination Knife attack on Kevin Lau, is above the article I nominated, Murder of Leigh Leigh, in the Law section of GA nominations. You're the first editor I have decided to contact regarding a quid pro quo. Don't want to wait another several months for someone to review your article? How about i'll start reviewing yours and you start reviewing mine? I am assuming that is allowed, please advise if you know if there is some kind of rule against that. If you're not interested/too busy to review an article, no worries, i'll just ask someone else. Just so there is full disclosure, I have only started reviewing my first GA nomination, another article nominated in the Law section: Talk:Ashley Smith inquest/GA1. I didn't contact the nominator of that article trying to arrange a exchange of review; I figured I should do at least one for free :). Let me know if you're interested in my proposal. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Freikorp:Thanks for the offer/suggestion. I'll take you on. I've had a look, there's no rule against it, but I've not done any GA reviewing before. I've just gone and did some style stuff (that I do systematically to articles I visit) on the article, but which I found on reading up the periphery that it isn't required. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Awesome :). I've just started reviewing your article, also getting the easy stuff out of the way first. I'll have more detailed comments in the couple days. Freikorp (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Just wanted to say thanks for your very comprehensive review of the lead and first section. To be honest i'm a little embarrassed at how many things you found that could be improved. Also please don't feel obligated to finish the review as soon as possible. I'd be more than happy if you only reviewed one section every day or two. :) Freikorp (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Noted. There's no need to be embarrassed by the fixes required. I always find it helpful that somebody else goes through what I have written. That's how improvements happen. Faults can happen for all sorts of reasons (such as rearranging text) and somebody who's been immersed in it may fail to find obvious stuff to fix. I also find it helps to leave an article for at least a month after intense editing and return to it with a fresh perspective. Anyway, I edit less on weekends, so look forward to the next instalment in the early part of next week. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, it's worked very nicely on this occasion, because neither of you feels an obligation to do a quick, dirty job, largely uncritical, because of the mutual obligation. That's why systemically at DYK QPQ has been a disaster. I'll take a quick look at both. Tony (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Thanks also for reminding us of the pitfalls. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Knife attack on Kevin Lau 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "KISS" in the edit summary was not needed. I've always treated you in a respectul manner. I've reverted your edit. The site parameter in {{infobox airliner accident}} is intended for "Accident/incident's location (e.g. placename, nearest city/town, country)".--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have difficulty understanding your rationale, as Russia is a country too. USSR was a superstate. Also, I KISS wasn't meant as an insult, and I apologise if you took it as such. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rationale was that the Russian SFSR is a former republic of the USSR, not a country. Did you mean ″Russia″ for the Russian SFSR? It is much more appropriate to refer to the USSR (or the Soviet Union) for the country the accident took place in. I won't revert again. Separately, KISS stuff clarified, no need to apologise.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove flags from tables of victims in aircrash articles. These are specifically allowed per WP:MOSFLAG and are a standard way of displaying such information. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohconfuciius. Please note this [6]. I needed to revert your edit so I could reinstate a previous version of the article. You're kindly invited to make the edit again. Hope you understand. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]