User talk:Ohconfucius/archive33

Per

You seem to have a vendetta against the use of flags. Your removals are against consensus, any further removals will lead to this issue being raised elsewhere. Consider this as a formal warning to cease and desist. Mjroots (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Until you start looking, you probably wouldn't know how overused flags are here on WP. I actually removed very few in my cleanup, and most of these have been reintegrated. I'm sure you accept flags that were removed in these two edits, for example, are non-compliant. regards. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first example you gave was an appropriate removal. The second example was not a removal of a national flag, and is arguable either way. Removal of flags where they are at the port of registry field or where a shipboxflag is used is not acceptable, per the link I posted above. Maybe it would be better to ask at WP level before wholesale removal. No harm can come from waiting a day or two. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you realize that you deleted a whole list of sister cities in your "General formatting" edit???Philipxd (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there, but there is no point of removing the list and adding a link to another wikipage as lists of sister cities are shown on nearly every cities on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipxd (talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article

The article

Thank you for your response at the thread there. Not that I'm saying that you were 'defending me', or that I'm thanking you for 'taking my side', as I never really intended, or saw, my bringing it up there as a 'adversarial' thing, which I tried to make clear. As the same time, as I also tried to make clear, I know that some people see ANI as the 'request for sanctions' noticeboard, not the 'incidents' noticeboard, that my addressing the issue there would create drama, and that people would question my judgement. Simply, thanks for not adding to that. Revent^talk 07:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohconfucius. First of all, I would like to let you know how much I generally appreciate your efforts in tidying up so many different aspects of Wikipedia articles. I have noticed, however, that you have recently twice deleted the twin cities sections in the articles about Danish cities we have been working up to GA (Esbjerg, Odense), preferring instead a link to List of twin towns and sister cities in Denmark. (I have also noticed that you appear to dislike the frequent use of flags which often accompany the twin cities lists.) Maybe there have been decisions to proceed along these lines but I must say that I personally find the twin/sister cities sections interesting and useful in the articles themselves: interesting because they provide an immediate overview of the connections established with other cities and useful because several of the other cities often have special arrangements or hold events or exchanges with the city in question. I don't suppose many people look at the See also sections to see if there is a link to twin cities. Indeed, if they do, they may well be distracted away from the article itself and undertake an examination of what connections are enjoyed by other cities in the list. I see your talk page is followed by some 270 editors. Maybe some of them would like to comment on this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twin cities by a long way are acceptable and advisable in city articles. Dismissing them as "clutter" isn't a valid argument for deletion and looks like vandalism. Flags aren't compulsory, but twin cities do form part of the city political framework and should be mentioned in city articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until we have consensus on this, please refrain from re-deleting these sections. I am obviously not the only one to think they're important.--Ipigott (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after seeing a discussion on OC's talkpage. This discussion has occurred numerous times, usually with the result that twin cities are dropped as ephemera. Twin cities are, in my experience, a chance for local tin-god politicians to give themselves junket trips to the other city and be photographed for puff-pieces in the local press. They have no economic, social, or cultural significance. They are merely political vanity at the basest level. I strongly believe WP should not give them the time of day. Tony (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you changing the ENGVAR tags on many articles about South African topics from South African English to British English? Are you denying the "legitimacy" of SAE as a real ENGVAR? English speaking South Africans do not speak or write British English. I'm confused by these changes which IMHO are contrary to the ENGVAR rules. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dodger67:I am not aware of any substantive differences between SA English and British English as far as the vocabulary of my script is concerned. Please also note that I am not tagging any SA articles with {{use British English}} but instead am using the 'code-neutral' {{EngvarB}} tag. I'd be grateful if you would enlighten me in what way I may have deviated from WP:ENGVAR so that I may adjust the script accordingly. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question in my mind is basically "Why remove the "Use SAE" template and replace it with a less precise one?" I don't know what "code-neutral" actually means, but if it means what I think it does then both templates should be able to exist on a page together and EngvarB can be added to pages without removing "Use SAE". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This issue came up among a few Australians. AusEng differs from BrEng in the spelling of one word, as far as I can see. South African English is very much based on BrEng. Aside from some local vocabulary, the grammar and spelling are almost identical with those of BrEng. The script is concerned with spelling, in which the language is basically binary. Why complicate matters? Tony (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the spelling is basically the same among these varieties, but by aggregating all non-American Engvars together the implication is that they are a single undifferentiated mass. The question I have is why remove a significant distinction that relates to aspects such as vocabulary, idiom, etc? If EngvarB is really concerned exclusively with spelling that's perfectly ok but please don't, by removing the "Use XXX English", imply that there are absolutely no differences at all between them. Use both templates together. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just, as an experiment, added "Use SAE" to OR Tambo District Municipality so that it now has both templates - it does not seem to have caused any problems - at least as far as the associated automatic categorization is concerned. Unless it's causing some "hidden damage" somewhere, this shows that both templates can amicably cohabit on a page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject there is no reason to change the specific {{Use British English}} to the non-specific {{EngvarB}} where it has already been determined which variant to use. The former is easier to understand and follow while the latter is not clear what editors should be using. Keith D (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, changing the date style in the references is one thing, and I can accept that since it's common that scripts on Wikipedia do that. But changing the American date setup and American spelling in the article text, as you did in this edit, which I reverted, is a different matter. Do find a way to make sure that your script does not disrupt the date format in the general article text or the

• What are you on about? It's not an American film, and most of the dates (in the version you reverted to) are already in dmy. It's been in dmy and British spelling since the early days. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going "on about" what I stated above. That it isn't an American film matters, why? It's an English-language film, and the article was currently using the American date setup and American spelling for the article text; like

talk) 13:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Flyer22: STATicVapor's comment appears to be ambiguous as to what it was referring to. The article was tagged {{use dmy dates}} and my edit updated the formatting. I accept that the British spelling may not have been appropriate, it was a my bad as I clicked on the wrong script button. In any case, it's not accepted practice to have dmy dates in the reference section and mdy in the body. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 08:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: Reverted yet again.

• @
  Flyer22: I am sorry, I was looking at that article but had forgotten there had been this here discussion. It is not accepted practice to have a mix of date formats, for example dmy in the body and mdy in the references, or vice versa. With that in mind, kindly decide which way it is to be, and change the tags or else accidental changes are unavoidable. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I went ahead and changed the template to

talk) 05:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• the format used in the article body text,
• an abbreviated format from the
  "Acceptable date formats" table
  , provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body, or
• the format expected in the
  citation style being used (however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have worked to improve the Charlotte Perrelli article today. If you can find any further improvements, that would be appreciated! :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this article is a copyvio? Most of the article text was posted in March 2006 [1] but the content on the website you named on the CSD notice is in a comment posted in February 2013. It would appear they copied off of us, not the other way around. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 B137 -- B137 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Thank you for fixes, but to change things in a part commented out (which will not even stay) as in Gerd Nienstedt is extra work not needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Too true, but it's not easy to spot when a huge chunk was commented out in that manner. Thanks for your indulgence. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I translate from de, I typically copy what's there (often a "huge chunck") and slowly (!) work on it. I may stop doing so because the copyvio detetor also doesn't recognize the commenting out. I only came here to save you precious time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's now on the Main page, and, yes, I kept what you did ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page An Post, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear OhConfucius, Thanks for your recent tidying edits to articles I have been working on, such as Gervase Elwes or Charles Bannister. I am always grateful for someone with an eagle eye for typographical details to sweep up after me, as I can be a bit casual. However, I wonder if it is really necessary or desirable for you to keep altering my spellings of (e.g.) 'recognize', etc, to 'recognise'. Mine is a perfectly correct national spelling of the word and as I am (I hope) consistent in my usage of it I would refer you to the censor remark above. With many thanks, Eebahgum (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the embedded comedian infobox was "messing things up". If the embedding is a problem then the infobox should be changed to the comedian infobox. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This version shows what looks like an abnormal table of contents. The page only returns to "normal" after the embedded template was removed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed it. Someone removed a flatlist and inadvertently left brackets. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

Dear Ohconfucius ; Very many thanks for your helpful assistance (aided by these great scripts of yours!) in tidying up our encyclopedia! I particularly appreciated the improvements you applied to the article on Andy Irvine, which I have been working on for a while. Please know that your meticulous approach is much appreciated. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• much obliged to you! Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remark, but there are teams who have highlighted nationalities of their players' clubs and show flag icons (teams like Ukraine, Slovenia, Serbia, Belgium, Turkey, Spain, Argentina, Croatia, Lithuania etc.). So, I would keep club nationalities of Georgian players. Dartzow (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roksan Xerxes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roksan Xerxes 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 B137 -- B137 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove {{start date}} , {{end date}}, or other subtemplates from infoboxes, or from {{Timeline-event}}, as you did in this edit. See its documentation for why it's needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit several hyphens that were described in the text as deliberate examples of hyphen use were changed to n dashes. Please repair. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohconfucius. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arshiya Lokhandwala, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I've cut out the gallery section, which was spammy and not appropriate for the article on the person. What remains is not spam in my view. However, whilst there's enough to pass A7 notability, I'm not sure about the GNG, so it might be advisable to take this to AfD. . Thank you. GedUK  12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ged UK: check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arshiya Lokhandwala. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your change to use url module for website has some sort of problem. {{URL|example.com|optional display text}} faulty? Richard Bruce Bradford (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing that out to me. It seems that not all the templates derived from {{Infobox person}} render the url field the same way. Boo hiss to this quirk. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per

I really don't want to have to use less natural phrasing just to head off a script. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an adequate work-around from my standpoint, but I don't think my change made the phrasing "unnatural", but horses for courses. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll do that. I don't think your change made the phrasing "un"natural either. Maybe a little less comfortable in context of an already long-winded sentence ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, try to avoid proposing deletion for anything remotely controversial. Go to AfD instead. The PC Police already are on our case. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your recent changes to articles on my watchlist, as in some of them you have deleted links to the West End. If you would like to redo your other changes, that will be admirable but please don't delete links to the West End, which, an American editor has told me, are needed for his compatriots who may not be familiar with the term. Regards, Tim riley talk 08:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this too, as my watchlist has lit up like a Christmas tree. It is ok to de-link "West End musical", or "West End theatre", or even "appeared in London's West End", as that explains what the West End is, but when it is by itself and could be confused with a merely geographical designation, it should be linked. Also, Confucius, you removed the dots from U.S., which is fine, but if it is at the *end of a sentence*, it needs the full stop. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"ultra isn't a word..." see Ultra it is no longer an Ultra secret. -- PBS (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you think

no kidding. 15k is pretty amazing. now that i'm cosponsor, i'm also responsible for any new faults introduced. just watch you don't put too many errors or i'll kick your butt. And mind those apostrophes. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try lol. Btw if you want either of the two offline journal articles or any of the offline newspaper articles (I have PDF's of all of them) just let me know which ones and i'll email them to you. I'm also happy to scan any section of the Who Killed Leigh Leigh book for you if you want to check anything in that as well. The only offline source I don't have access to is 'Coyle, Rebecca (2005)'.

talk) 14:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I just finished expanding the information on NC1's conviction, which was one of two issues in the article I thought were lacking in detail. The other issue is Guy Wilson's conviction and the aftermath. (According to Who Killed Leigh Leigh, Leigh's stepfather assaulted Wilson after Wilson told him Leigh's younger sister would "be next". Sometime thereafter Wilson's house was firebombed. Wilson was also sentenced to a further 6 months in prison for assaulting someone else in or around Stockton in an unrelated incident.) Anyway i'm not sure how much of that information i'll end up adding (it's a bit difficult due the timeframe of these incidents occurred not being specified), I just thought i'd let you know it's the only issue I ever intend to expand. I know you're not supposed to work on an article being nominated for FAC, but as no-one has commented on the nomination yet, I don't think my edits today present any problem. Also if you haven't looked at it already, I made a list of interesting facts I found in microfilm and online on the talk page of the article. Have a look and let me know if you think any of the information i've listed there should be integrated into the article.

talk) 08:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Perhaps my mate Tony wouldn't mind swinging over there and commenting? Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, I'm wondering why you ditched the tombstone picture for the portrait? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't want to change it, but as per the image review at the nomination, "The Australian copyright act specifies that their

  talk) 05:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oh, well... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have four people supporting the nomination now, which is fantastic and more than enough in itself (as long as somebody else doesn't review and oppose), though as one of the closers pointed out, none of the reviewers have done a source check for accuracy and/or close paraphrasing, which is needed. Whilst asking someone to completely review the article may have been a bit daunting, now we only need to find someone to review some of the sources, which should be far less time consuming. I'll start asking around, if you know anyone who might be willing to do that feel free to ask them too. :)

• That's quite healthy. The four who have commented are all well regarded reviewers, and the progress of the review is all very encouraging. I wouldn't worry, someone like User:Nikkimaria will be around at some stage to check the sources. I wouldn't try rushing it too much, these things take their sweet time. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah you're right about it taking a while haha, though that now presents a small problem as I wasn't expecting the nomination to take this long. Heads up; i'll be on vacation with no internet access from October 22 till November 2. As the co-nominator i'll need you to either address concerns while I am gone or at least try and buy some time and prevent them from closing the nomination without promoting it until I get back. Who knows, maybe the article will get promoted before I go, but in case it isn't I just thought i'd give you plenty of notice instead of just telling you the day I leave.
  talk) 06:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks for letting me know. Of course, I'll keep a lookout over that review. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for addressing those close-paraphrasing concerns whilst I was gone. Well, the article is at the bottom of the queue now, still awaiting a full source review but who knows if it will get it, and i'm guessing if it doesn't it won't be promoted. If you know someone who would be willing to kill an evening doing a source review now would be the time to ask, but in any case I just wanted to say thanks for your help on the article thus far. Also thought i'd let you know if it is not passed I simply intend to renominate it once both the two week period for re-nomination has passed and my other FAC nomination is closed, so it won't be the end of the world. Have a nice day. :)
  talk) 12:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The reviewer only spot-checked the citations, and I rectified only the ones that were identified. The article actually needs to be examined for all the sources. I've been a bit occupied but it would be helpful if you checked over those, particularly those that you added after my review. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 18:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It might interest you to know that I have nominated the article for the feature film that was inspired by the murder,

Thanks for taking another look; I still think we could include more but it was good to have some mention in there when the article appeared on the front page and it's not worth arguing over. If the Scots do vote yes I'm sure chaos will ensue and there will be plenty to update with - Basement12 (T.C) 19:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the Scots vote to secede, there will be more to update it with, that's true. When that happens, speculation will decrease and facts/certainty will increase. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I noticed that this "Script-assisted" edit changed the title of a work from title case to sentence case. Based on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_works I think this is wrong. If this was a scripted part of the change, I think the script needs checking.TuxLibNit (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TuxLibNit: Which sentence or word? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: The change is in a {{cite web}} and is from |work=Former Members of Parliament to |work=Former members of parliament, as shown in the short diff I provided).TuxLibNit (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TuxLibNit: members and parliament should not be capitalized, ohconfucius probably followed such fundamental rule. Anyways, now I have seen that it was about the work parameter, I think "|work=Former Members of Parliament" is incorrect, it should be "|work=Parliament.nsw.gov.au" or "|work=Parliament of NSW". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree members of parliament should not usually be capitalised in article main text, but I beleive it should be capitalised in a {{cite web}} |work=. I'll wait for Ohconfucius to comment before making any further responses.TuxLibNit (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; 99.9% of instances will be downcased, and this rare exception was caught by the script. Normally we scrutinise, but occasionally one slips through. I'll change it now. Tony (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. I'm sorry I didn't spot that earlier. The |work= parameter is meant to display the name of the publication (work) that contains the relevant information. It italicises. OTOH, websites are not generally

italicised, and the publisher field already contains the publisher's name (Parliament of NSW), so what's in the work parameter is redundant and ought to be removed outright. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

... or some similar possibility I havn't thought of. I hope that is clearer. TuxLibNit (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. I see it as a one-off error caused by the

GIGO principle, and I don't believe it's likely to recur systematically. The downcasing would be proper in 99+% of cases, so I do not believe the script needs to be adjusted. I will keep an eye out in case the rate is lower than 99+%, and will make necessary adjustments as and when these arise. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw that on this article you removed the accessdate parameter from some of the source definitions and then changed the date format on the citations. I have undone these changes. The YYYY-MM-DD date format is acceptable in citations regardless of the date format used in the body. I have not read the printed books cited, but have viewed a website that purports to show images of the printed pages. This website does not always attribute pages accurately (example), and is subject to revision. As with any url, an accessdate is appropriate since it shows when the source was seen – the version being cited – useful when retrieving archived page images. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That was most unhelpful to revert the entirety of my edits. The access dates in the case of google books is entirely unnecessary as most only point to a description about the book. Even if it was to a readable page of the book, such access dates are meaningless because the page is a scan of a printed version which is already cited; the date it was accessed is wholly irrelevant to anything. It's actually questionable that the link itself should be included as it confers no benefit to the reader once the essential title, isbn, author, page number and year of publication are filled in. Also, there were formatting errors caused by inappropriate use of the |ref=harvard field. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of ref=harv in source definitions is valid even if the article text does not use the harvid. It has no effect on what the reader sees, and may be useful. The point, again see this example and think about what you see, is that there is no guarantee that what is being displayed is in fact what Google claims it is. All we know is that this is what Google displayed for that url on that date. Google is just a website like any other. All convenience links should include both url and date. I will again revert your change. I have no interest in getting into an edit war, but see no point in removing information that may potentially be valuable. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't believe you're still reverting me. I suggest you paste the following into your vector.js page, and you will see the sea of red that your harvard refs, included because "they may be useful", generate :

      importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');

      Regards. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • I have that, with window.checkLinksToCitations = false; If you check the script documentation you will see the reasoning. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no reason to set the default to "false". In any event, the templates are located within the publications section and are not destined for use as citations, so I think your point is rather moot. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I often copy-paste a chunk of text with a citation from an article I started to another that does not use harvid citations. I stick the source definition inside <ref></ref> tags, add page numbers and remove the {{sfn}} template. Later I may copy-paste from that article to another that does use harvid citations. I have also, not often but sometimes, put an {{sfn}} link to a source definition in a publications section, as in "He published A History of Zenobia in 1775.^[1]. I use http://reftag.appspot.com/ to format citations, and it is easiest to just let it harvid all citations. There is no harm and it may be useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see, so it's primarily for your own personal convenience. You clutter up (or cause display errors in) one article just because the template may be transferred for use as a citation in another article. Sounds daft to me. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • My guess is that most editors who use the script have set the default to "false" for the same reason I did. I like citations to be as complete as possible, do not notice any clutter, and see no value in removing valid and potentially useful parameters. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • pfff. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop removing blue links to West End theatre? As I have told you before, American readers have specifically said that not all readers outside the United Kingdom know what the term means, and that is why we always link it. You will see that the term is linked in Featured Articles on Gielgud, Richardson et al, and nobody at PR or FAC has ever suggested that the term is an

• You insist on reinstating links even though they are duplicated. Please note that there is a "link only on first occurrence" rule, and there is absolutely no justification for linking three times in an article of this size. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise unreservedly. I failed to spot that you were removing duplicate links. As long as you leave one WL to "West End theatre" in situ, that will be fine. I think you removed them altogether from some articles in the past, and please be careful not to do that in future, but as soon as I have finished typing this note I'll do the necessary on the Courtneidge page. Tim riley talk 10:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I will take more care. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits, but please try not to link to redirects. It's

• GIGO. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've no idea what you mean but I'm sure it's very sane... Ericoides (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ericoides It just means that my edit did not change where that click ended. If you went back to the version before I rationalised the linking, by clicking on that blue, you would arrive at the same target page (via the redirect) compared to after my edit. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, OK, got you. Ericoides (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • With [this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Middlemore&curid=38207170&diff=624413623&oldid=596057827] you changed In Pinn to in Pinn. Why? Ericoides (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • non-capitalisation of prepositions, the "In" is routinely downcased by the script unless where these are specifically excepted or protected. I can protect it if the string is likely to recur, but it doesn't seem like a valid publisher name. I'm unfamiliar with this publisher, and an Amazon search for isbn:978-1-906476-34-2 gives the book's publisher as "Neil Wilson Publishing". I know this is unrelated to why it's downcased, but perhaps you may see fit to correct it. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Thanks for the reply. It's a bit frustrating that these automatic programs incorrectly correct things. In mountaineering, In Pinn is a well-known imprint of NWP. See here. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you and I had an amicable discussion on this a while ago and you agreed that nbsp in dates was okay. What's changed? Since you used MOSNUM to back your argument, I see no statement there forbidding its use in dates. Further, the Ranges section of that guideline gives the following example of correct usage:

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist ...

Markup: 12{{

nbsp

}}April 1882 or 12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882

Also, you've been changing ranks to sentence case. Ranks are either all lower case when used in the form "Bloggs was promoted to flight lieutenant", or in title case when used in the form "Flight Lieutenant Bloggs". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I'd not realised there was an snd template. So there's an nd template too? Something to tell the Windows users. The only thing I have against the non-breaking space is that it makes the edit mode more indigestible for would-be editors. I do wish we have a less intrusive and more convenient code for nbsps. This was explored years ago without success. Tony (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, good to hear from you. I agree it'd be nice to have easier forms of markup but I'm not forcing anyone to use it. I just happen to think nbsp in dates is as logical as in other areas of WP and if there's no rule against it (indeed, the example above seems to encourage its use) then these otherwise helpful scripts should leave it alone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nbsp inside date strings isn't "harmful" per se, but complicates maintenance of date formats. Some time ago, before I built protection for certain dates from script action, I used the nbsp to protect titles with dates from being changed. Over time, I came to realise that there are the occasional articles with nbsp in date strings that prevented correct uniformisation when they ought to have been aligned. But this issue of nbsp in date strings only exists with a very small proportion of articles, and even then often not uniformly for all dates, so this has not been a serious problem. The presence of the string, as well as the apparently increasing number of templates performing such functions, creates an issue with detection and correction of errant formats. In addition, these represent unnecessary clutter on screen while in edit mode. That's why I coded the script to remove these in the first instance before the script aligns dates. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed my question of what's changed since we last had this conversation and, as far as I recall, reached agreement that nbsp was not forbidden in dates and therefore didn't need to be removed. As far as supposed clutter goes, lots of things can cause that in edit mode, it's there to create a better look for the reader. I've had dozen of people copyedit articles I've written at GAN or FAC and not one has ever raised a concern with nbsp in dates or anywhere else. Now based on all that I'd like to restore it where I've used it without being reverted again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much has changed, it seems, except that my memory has gotten worse; or the 40k+ edits I have made since when we last talked in January have blurred my mind. Anyone running my script will strip out the nbsp until I manage to reconfigure it. So I think that to reduce the risk of that happening, the best thing is if you could help out by ensuring the date tag ({{use dmy dates|date=month yyyy}}) in each article you have this nbsp system is updated regularly, say every few months. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, and apologies if you've mentioned that last bit to me before and I've forgotten it (we all have our memory lapses)... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lugard Road, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that visitors are advised to walk Lugard Road to enjoy its "spectacular views" of Victoria Harbour? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lugard Road. 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.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Darren Allison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Something for the Weekend. 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) 09:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you previously (#Subtemplates, above) not to break event templates; you have done so again here. Please desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohconfucius. The more I look at the article, the more I share your concerns. Perhaps a CCI might be a bit much for just one article, tho. What do you think? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Pete, that's fine by me. So long as the copyvio has a reasonable chance of being wiped before long. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When doing "Script-assisted fixes per

Quotations, titles of books and articles, and similar "imported" text should be faithfully reproduced, even if they employ formats or units inconsistent with these guidelines or with other formats in the same article.

Thanks. Stanning (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stanning:I'm well aware of that requirement, but there was nothing in edit mode to indicate to the script that it was a quote. I've now fixed it so that it won't be changed in future. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your changes to some spellings of sources in the footnotes and am particularly puzzled about "The Telegraph". Clicking on both "The Telegraph" and "The Daily Telegraph" citations in the footnotes brings up "The Telegraph" as the title of the newspaper. I am fairly sure the printed newspaper version is still "The Daily Telegraph", so is "The Telegraph" just its online name? The Wikipedia article on the newspaper is no help on this. I also noticed that you changed "Aljazeera" to "Al Jazeera", which of course is the proper name, so am I right in thinking that online names like "Aljazeera", "alarabiya" and "The Telegraph" should not be used in footnote citations? I also wondered about "The Huffington Post", which is the title in the Wikipedia article on it, but you have changed it to "Huffington Post" in the footnotes. Is there any WP guidance on citation conventions? ---

• @
  P123ct1: Through the script, I try to align the names of sources or works to their namespaces in WP, so naturally "Aljazeera", "Aljazeera.com" or "Aljazeera English" would be changed to "Al Jazeera". I see there is no point piping so: |work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] when |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] is cleaner. On the other hand, I thank you for drawing my attention to "The Huffington Post". This omission/removal of the prefix seems to be an error on my part, which I have now adjusted the script for. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Apurva Asrani

added a link pointing to Children of War

Jo Aleh

added a link pointing to Kingston

Kan Singh Parihar

added a link pointing to

Vice-chancellor

Mujahid Kamran

added a link pointing to

Vice-chancellor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,  Ohc ^¡digame! 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply about formatting newspapers. Can you answer my question about The Daily Telegraph, please? Should it be "The Telegraph" in the footnotes, which is the way it appears on the website text, or "The Daily Telegraph"? Wikipedia's article on The Daily Telegraph" is no help here. --

]

• @
  P123ct1:It depends, because there are several "The Telegraphs". My script is unable to parse except where the underlying link is The Daily Telegraph or the field is |work=telegraph.co.uk. So if the field is |work=Telegraph, it gets left alone. I hope that answers your question. -- Ohc ^¡digame!
  02:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC

When you say there are several "The Telegraph"s, I presume you mean others that are not the English newspaper. As the website that comes up on clicking in the text either The Telegraph or The Daily Telegraph (English newspapers) is always headed The Telegraph, I wondered if the wikitext for the citaton should read The Telegraph and not The Daily Telegraph. That was all. I can easily put The Telegraph in the wikitext for the citation, but you seem to have a problem doing this, or perhaps I misunderstood you. When creating the footnote, should I not always follow the website heading that comes up, i.e. The Telegraph, and put that in for "work="? --

talk) 06:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• @
  common convention. There are occasionally attempts to make these coherent on a global level. It's not an issue I am particularly interested in right now, I just try to ensure the script follows the namespaces given. If it's decided by consensus to move the article to The Telegraph, I'll adjust my script accordingly. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Denstone College

Just wondering why in your edit of Denstone College (18 May 2014), "Staffordshire" has been de-capitalised a few times, as I believe counties should always be capitalised (but I may be wrong)  Ohc ^¡digame! 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13tsf13 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't explain what happened there, but I have re-edited the article, and all seemed to function normally. Thanks for your heads up. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...and...

Thanks for your script fixes to an article I worked on, Francis Tregian the Younger. I noted you inverted the day from month day to day month -- and I believe that WP takes the attitude that this should not be done automatically (assuming one way if preferable to another way) and that if the article consistently has it one way, it should not be altered. -- 16:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(

WP:STRONGNAT in the edit summary to indicate that the edit is using the former. GoingBatty (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks GB. My edit summary indeed already refers to

WP:TIES. Cheers, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:STRONGNAT would be for the varieties of date formats, right? GoingBatty (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at where those shortcuts lead suggests to me that WP:TIES is more over-arching, whilst WP:STRONGNAT apples more specifically to dates. However, both are in fact saying we need to apply styles relating to "STRONG NATIONAL TIES", and I don't think I need both in my edit summaries. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request FYI

Hi Ohconfucius! I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 12. GoingBatty (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AWB error

Thanks for your date format and Br. spelling corrections, but please do not delink solicitor, where you mean a lawyer, because in the US, the word means a salesperson. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melford Stevenson

I just noticed the edit that you made some time ago here. I think something went wrong.

Your "fix" included changing the expression "in the case of Ryan (1964) 50 Cr App R 144, at 148" to say "in the case of Ryan (1964) 500 million App R 144, at 148". Unfortunately,

Cr App R

is an English law report but "500 million App R" makes no sense.

I guess you have some sort of (semi-)automated editing software that thinks a number followed by Cr must mean crore? Unfortunately that is not necessarily the case. May I suggest that you might want to change the software, and/or take more care when reviewing the suggested edits.

I also see that you delinked LLB. Is that so obvious that there is no need for a link? -- Ferma (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I see you re-fixed that instance after my previous message, but a cursory search (for "million App R") also finds one instance that has survived since October 2013, and another from June 2013 - ChrisGualtieri that time, not you. No doubt this is a rare error, but might there be other instances of a number before "Cr" which don't involve the Criminal Appeal Reports? Is there an easy way to locate and fix any other errors of this nature? -- Ferma (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jon Gomm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Message in a Bottle. 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) 09:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date script

In cleaning up Al-Qaeda, the script want to change "the September 11 attacks" to "the September 11 attacks". --  Gadget850 ^talk 14:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You weren't clear about the exact change made, and I couldn't get the script to create any error in the string. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut & paste bites ma again. And now that string does not change. --  Gadget850 ^talk 17:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspected it might have been that. I'll check the script and make sure it's protected. Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that I am back at my home computer. The original string is "The US government responded to the September 11 attacks by launching...". Selecting 'ALL dates to dmy' changes it to "The US government responded to September 11 attacks by launching...". I'm trying to decide if that scans properly. --  Gadget850 ^talk 01:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{

Cleanup-bare URLs

}}

Hello, just a note that I've linked to

Template:Cleanup-bare URLs/doc. Is that okay? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 23:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Of course! :-) Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speed values in Burt Munro article

Hi. I've noticed you're using a script to change a decimal to a comma in some numbers. In the Burt Munro article, this has the effect of changing his record-setting speed from a value in the hundreds of kph to a value in the hundreds of thousands of kph. This makes no sense. Please double check you're changing annotation that really needs to be corrected. Thanks. Mindfrieze (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I didn't spot those. That sort of formatting doesn't come across that often. I'll make a note to adjust the script. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Occupy Central with Love and Peace logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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

Stefan2 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for Alliance for Peace and Democracy (Hong Kong)

pro-Beijing Alliance for Peace and Democracy was established to counter the Occupy Central with Love and Peace movement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alliance for Peace and Democracy (Hong Kong). 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply