User talk:Ohconfucius/archive12

DEFENDER OF HONG KONG

10:49 AM, Wednesday May 1, 2024

This user is a native of Hong Kong.

This user is a citizen of the United Kingdom.

This user lives in France.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 4 months and 1 day.

... Subset terms A subset term identifies a set of members of a larger class. Common subset terms are including, such as, and among. Don't use redundant subset terms (so avoid constructions like these: Among the most well-known members of the fraternity are included two members of the Onassis family; The elements in stars include hydrogen, helium and iron, etc.). Don't use including to introduce a complete list, where comprising, consisting of, or composed of would be more accurate. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

Arilang say Hi

Thanks for your message. Yes, we now kind of form a small but highly motivated group, we are all interested in China related articles. You are welcome to join us. Arilang ^talk 09:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add content

You may like this article:User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/List of offences that attract jail terms in China Arilang ^talk 16:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani RFC

Hello, Ohconfucius. Eugene2x (talk · contribs) files WP:Requests for comment/User conduct on Badagnani (talk · contribs). Since you've known him for a long time and you filed this, your input on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani would appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulibasa image

Already left the same message for Olahus. Is it possible for an editor in Romania to access the book in question to see if there is additional info. about this image? Should be easily accessed in any academic library over there. Photo would be a good addition if it could be salvaged and I think the book as a reference could be a good source for several articles. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Are you sure you have the right guy? Ohconfucius (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Was trying to leave a message for this editor, User talk:Kenshin. For some reason clicking on his 'Leave message here' redirects to your page, which is why you were inadvertently sent the message twice. I'll try to let him know in order to resolve. Probably a cut and paste of code that needs tweeking. RashersTierney (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of editing his talk page to achieve what he clearly intended. Issue should be resolved. RashersTierney (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote sub pages

Good idea with the sub pages - thanks for sorting them out! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC on date-autoformatting and the linking of date fragments

These issues have been the subject of an ongoing ArbCom hearing, and a further RFC (after those held in November at MOSNUM) is under way to settle important details.

Which ever way you feel, it’s important that the current RFC capture full community opinion. You may wish to participate. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Baidu meme

Well, it looks like I need your friendly help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. Thanks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh for chrissake

Stop spamming. Bad idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. In particular in combination with accusing others of canvassing. --Amalthea :  Chat  10:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement notice

Per custom, you have been mentioned at WP:AE#Ohconfucius yet again. seicer | talk | contribs 14:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

I appreciate the userboxes. I've got them posted here. Thanks again.SteveB67 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Species details

Where did you get the species details for Grass Mud Horse from? Was it from Baike? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 06:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Alpaca, and I got details for River Crab from Chinese mitten crab. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, don't try to get too carried away with the infoboxes. As they are fictional, we might have issues with some users, who may interpret them as Uncyclopedia-related material. Try to avoid AfDs. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Duprat06.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Duprat06.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Just for future reference, it´s Gobi Desert, not Gobe Desert. Thanks for working in List of cryptids. Regards. --Againme (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

InterWK

Well, I don't see any problem in having the same Interwiki on 2 different articles, especially if they discuss similar topics. Just look at "Kenkan" and "Manga Kenkanryu". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 06:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking

Hi. When you say "linking", I assume you are referring to say 1930 as opposed to simply 1930. Thanks for letting me know. I guess old habits are hard to break, but I will do so.

Btw: Could you review Pamela Chan, an article I created, and confirm its notability (it was tagged as non-notable). Thanks!Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Logo dcil.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Since I just apologized to Greg, I'm figuring I should do the same to you. I'm sorry I called you names the other day. I was mostly angry at Greg and not you, and you just got caught in the crossfire. It was inappropriate and I'm sorry. --Sapphic (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. It is most graceful. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Plain text Date templates

I am not quite sure where you stand on date templates, but you may recall that I was advocating plain text date templates in February on MOSNUM. You asked me if they took any sides on the linking/ autoformatting issues and the answer was basically no- and the only reason for my interest in them is in emitting metadata via KML and microformats. I personally don't like to see wikitext mucked up with a bunch of arcane templates, so I figured that plain text date templates would make them a lot less user hostile. Anyway, although it sometimes seems incredible to me that people would oppose easy to read dates, there is an imbroglio at MOSNUM over the issue. MOSNUM recommends {{death date and age}} that requires numeric syntax. The MOSNUM guidance was briefly changed due to my assumption based on the february conversations that recommending plain text flavor of the templates was uncontroversial. Anyway, the original text was restored because a lot of people felt the change was not done properly, but the trouble is there is a rather entrenched set of folks that neither want the numeric templates upgraded to also handle plain text dates, nor to allow the MOSNUM passage to also allow use of the plain text versions of these date templates. So basically the defacto situation is that plain text dates are banned from these templates in perpetuity and its open season on any use of plain text versions of these templates. I wouldn't have a leg to stand on in an ANI dispute. This is a situation for which there was never any consensus at MOSNUM. The plain text option didn't even exist until very recently, so my argument is that there has never been a consensus against plain text dates or this de facto outcome. I know you may be against the idea of any date templates, but you may have an opinion on the subject that may come from a different direction than we have considered so far. You might like to take a look at it here. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. I will get to it, but need some time to read through the exchanges and the proposal. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps if you are busy, this can be deferred. I have been reviewing the arbcom workshop thread and and found further proposals regarding MOS process there that if approved would change this discussion entirely. For example, maybe the Anderson faction would weaken enforcement strength of MOS guidelines. I share Tony's view that would be gravely mistaken, even though such a weakening would favor some short term goals of plain text dates. Maybe a further explanation why I think that is so is pertinent to the arbcom workshop discussion. Anyway, the plain text thread is of considerable length so if your schedule is busy, perhaps you should defer your consideration of this. I wanted to get the opinion of the participants of the February discussion before I proceeded with an RFC, but perhaps it is better to wait for for the arbcom ruling. I have little experience with these processes. Do you have any guess on how long it will be before a ruling is made? -J JMesserly (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not an asshole

I'm sorry, I wasn't directing my bile at you, it's just that you just keep getting in the way when Tony, Greg, or H tweak me. Your sarcasm does irritate me a bit (it's the lowest form of humor, IMHO) but you're never actually mean-spirited and you never resort to the bad-faith tactics (entirely false quotes, misrepresenting facts, taking quotes out of context to alter their meaning, etc.) that the others do. If those three were gone, I'm sure the rest of us would've been able to work out a better solution to the dates issue, months ago. Again, sorry. Please continue trying to be the voice of calm. --Sapphic (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So with you out of the equation, it must have been towards myself that Sapphic's usual and predictable bile was directed. "If those three were gone..."—laughably ironic in the current circumstances.  HWV258  05:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments at User talk:Sapphic

I am confused by your comments above. They are rather obfuscatory, but it seems as though you are implying that I have behaved inappropriately in declining his unblock request. If that is the case, perhaps you could explain your objections in more plain language, and perhaps I could explain my rationale to you so that you can understand more fully my deep reasoning for acting as I did in declining his unblock request. If you weren't calling me out, then perhaps you could be more clear in explaining exactly what you meant. I really would like to clear this up, as there seems to be some level of misunderstanding. Either I am misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding me, or a little of both is going on. Please respond so we can clear this up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. Just to explain a little more about my reasoning; admins are not psychics or clairvoyants. We cannot know for certain that two accounts are run by one person or two; but when the evidence is clear that EITHER it is one person or two people working together in such a way that they must be closely colluding to disrupt, and where other options are unlikely, then it doesn't really matter which is actually true. Both are so disruptive the merit the same blocks, and it isn't necessary to distinguish between the two situations in order to issue a block. Given that new accounts were created and showing up to "defend" the user in question, I thought that evidence enough that some chicanery was going on. I don't particularly care whether this guy was creating the new accounts himself, or whether he coerced his buddy to create the new account for the sole purpose of defending him, neither is a defendable situation. See this ArbCom Precedent which essentially established the principle... Again, thanks for your apology on the situation. For what it is worth, I am still willing to hear a reasonable explanation from both Sapphic and UC Bill which would give cause to unblock both accounts. However, the sequence of events surrounding this situation has not given me hope yet. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary date format change

Please stop changing the date formats in articles from international yyyy-mm-dd format to a dmy format without explaining why you did so on the talk page. If you want to do it correctly, use {{date|yyyy-mm-dd}}. That way the date will display properly for each user's region settings. For example, {{date|2009-04-17}} displays as 17 April 2009 for you, and likely different for me — how it's displayed depends on your settings. Thanks. =Axlq 16:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• As you did not furnish any links, I do not know what 'arbitrary action' you are referring to. However, more generally, as you may or may not be aware, the use of ISO 8601 date format is not encouraged in running text and is only endorsed for use in tables where it may be necessary to sort. Furthermore, since the deprecation of autoformatting, I am making this is part of my work to harmonise date formats withing articles, in compliance with WP:MOSNUM. Therefore, through application of WP:BOLD, I changed these to one of the prevailing [dmy or mdy] formats. Again, as with the rejection of any form of autoformatting by the community (see WP:DATEPOLL), I suspect use of the {{date}} template would add to the complexity of the editing experience, and go against that consensus. I hope this addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact me again if you have any further queries. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics#all date formats to dmy. =Axlq 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Some date-change problems

[1] I'm assuming you are using a script. It's changing links that include iso-like dates. Please get the script adjusted, and look more carefully for such problems. Gimmetrow 01:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Appreciate it! Ohconfucius (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Date unlinking

Counting on you not to do any. It's so close. Please see Colonies Chris's talk page. Tony (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder. I have done much work on dates in the last four/five days. Re-examining at the articles I touched, I rectified a large number of data-formatting inconsistencies in over a hundred articles, most of which are on my watch-list; there were a small number of (mainly ISO) dates delinked in about 10 articles where many hundreds of other date instances were corrected at the same time; this injunction has now lost its raison d'être and should have been lifted, but I know that neither of those is the point.

  I obviously cannot contain my compulsion whenever I'm on these date things, so I think I shall stay away from mainspace for a few days. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Howdja do that?

(from Talk:Serena Williams) Quoting you: For me, it makes a good candidate because it is a high-profile page which attracts 2.5k page views daily. How do you retrieve such statistics? Greg L (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• By using this tool by Grokster: Wikipedia hit counter, by month. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Still around?

Hi, I was wondering if you're still around; I've just returned after a bit of a sabbatical (due to business off-wiki). Looks like your still chin-deep in the date issue. I merely wanted to stop by, say hello, and belatedly thank you for your help on Lafayette. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Good to hear from you! Yep, I have been stuck in the dates case, which has turned out to be a huge time- and energy-sump for all those involved, but hopefully the end is nearing. Other than participating in the the "post-war reconstruction", and arguing for the improvements I wish for the Arbcom process, I will attack some mainspace work as a diversion from the stresses of WP work. I have not forgotten about Lafayette, and will come and work on it. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Will Kirby edits

I disagree that listing appearances and dates is trvial. I have researched editing guidelines and policies and can find no description of what would be considered trivial. It appears to me that this term is entirely subjective. I have checked other reality star pages as well as that of television and movie celebs. There appear to be numerous articles where appearances have been listed with dates. If Will Kirby were to be making these appearances every week, I could see not listing the specific dates but under the circumstances, it does not seem to be trivial to put the dates since they are random and a part of the entertainment bio. Blue-morpho1 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message. I wholly disagree with your reasoning. What passes in articles of other 'reality stars' is not a precedent or benchmark for Kirby. Kirby is a profefssional, and I am interested in creating a serious biography about him. The standards which we should be look to are Featured Articles, and I feel it is preferable to have a simple biography stub than one which is choc full of rambling material and excessive detail. Listing dates of each TV episode Kirby has appeared in would only be of interest to a fan, and there are an abundance of fan sites on the internet for these tabloid celebs. I have several of these bios on my watchlist, but perhaps I really ought not to be editing this type of article. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Serena Williams

Thanks for all your work. However, in this edit, you introduced WP:ITALICS breaches. Publications (newspapers, magazines, journals) should be in italics. Change publisher= to work= in the cite templates to fix this. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. In tht case, quite a few instances will need to be changed... Ohconfucius (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hi Ohconfucius, based on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard discussion, I advise you should be more cautious about delinking dates until the injunction is lifted. PhilKnight (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey good to hear from you. If you look in my archive 6, you'll find some choice Tennis Expert off-the-rail moments. He's very disagreeable and has major ownership issues. Let me know if you need anything and I'll chip in. He needs to be put on a civility and editing restriction. Eusebeus (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The names in your sandbox

I'm curious about why my contribs (and those of many other editors) are linked in User:Ohconfucius/Sandbox. Does this list have some sort of purpose? Am I under investigation of being... eeeeeevil? bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Affirmative ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No seriously, what is the deal? I'm gonna get all self-conscious here. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's nothing. After User:Sapphic and User:UC Bill were found to be sockpuppet/master, I went combing through contributions lists for evidence which might suggest further sockpuppetry by same. You were eliminated, as indicated by the strikethrough and by the edit summary which generated it. I apologise that it seems to have caused you unease. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC

This is to inform you that a RfC for Tennis expert has been started here. AlonsornunezComments 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

policy poll subpage

Hi, have you read User_talk:Tony1#Re:_Impending_RFC ? Kirill didnt think it would need a subpage. I dont much care. Enjoy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, John. I kinda forgot it when I moved the RfC there. I was thinking it would be neater. As it is transcluded, the effect is exactly the same as it being on that page, so there shouldn't be any fewer people seeing/reading it. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Stale

Don't do this [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your comments. If I'm honest, I'm not all that surprised that there is an RfC as although he no doubts knows his stuff, he can come across as quite abrasive - although that is largely due to his accusations of tag-teaming and his concerns that I am too young for Wikipedia. Best Regards. Alan16 ^talk 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Serena Williams

Hello. As a significant contributor to this article during its recent drive towards WP:FAC, I'm just posting a quick reminder to say, firstly, great work and, secondly, please continue with the great work. We're pretty close to a nomination and further help, particularly with citations on playing style, may just help clinch it. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

An article you contributed to maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you helped contribute to: Zhong Gong may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhong Gong.

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of this article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Zhong Gong: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)

3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.

4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If the page you edited is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Maria Sharapova

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maria Sharapova. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. See also WP:BRD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:CONSENSUS. Tennis expert (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, there have been no reverts, I made over twenty edits each time for total transparency, and any one of them could have been challenged, so where's my edit warring? I removed a whole bunch of overlinks, copious amounts of small detail that don't belong to the finished article, including several repetitions of 'Indian Wells, California', 'Key Biscayne, Florida', etc. There was some stuff that Tennis expert never put back with his revert, so it would imply agreement at least for that part. Oh, just to keep him sweet I left the grunting section you created (not that any more than one line is deserved, IMHO), and even moved a related quote there. Anyway, I note that Tennis expert is not accusing me of blind reverts, (just as well). I'm off. Wake me up before you Gogo. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• In all likelihood and unless messages get very much more cordial, I will ignore (or remove) any further posting here on this subject by Tennis expert as trolling or baiting. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence

I've removed your evidence section because it exceeded the 1000 word limit. Please only readd it when it conforms to the 1000 word/100 diff maximum. As this is the second time I've had to discuss this with you, I simply removed you whole section rather than asked you to cut it down. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want, use a history link—that is, add a link to the version of the evidence page that has all you evidence on it. [3]. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Because the situation has changed, I have removed the out-dated evidence. I have also simplified somewhat for the unimportant stuff. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

my revert

I have reverted your edit to the talk page of the Tennis expert RfC. Putting a picture of a pig is needlessly inflammatory. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Master li hongzhi.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Master li hongzhi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Shizhao (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

MFD

USDA inspection of pig slaughter.

Hi. It seems that your MFD doesn't really hit the relevant main page. I just wanted to let you know. Well, I know this post is canvassing and incivil and that I am not welcome to edit on your user talk page since I have called you a vandal recently, and since it now confirms that we "like to engage in attacks as a group", and are "members of the 8", and so on ...... oh well, :-) --HJensen, talk 19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

• Yeh, how dare you! Why are you trolling now? Go slaughter a pig! Ohconfucius (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing my arbitration evidence subpage

Do not edit it, for any reason. You know better. Tennis expert (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I really suggest you strike the word "slander" in this edit and follow it with a different word. While I understand you may be frustrated by the content on Tennis expert's subpage, the word "slander" is frequently misconstrued to imply a legal threat, the use of which is not permitted. I'm not suggesting that was your intention, but in the interests of keeping things "on track", I think it would help things. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's not letting you take it back. Keep the diff where you attempted a refactor handy in case something happens- all it'll take is that plus an explanation that said refactor was to avoid the impression that you implied a legal threat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)Thanks ! You can't say I didn't try. Anyhow, I don't think there is any danger. It's obvious enough that it's an example that only a very sick wikilawyer might want to make political capital out of it. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Falun_Gong_activism_on_Wikipedia

Want to comment here [4]?--PCPP (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

John Paul II

I had to revert your latest edit to John Paul II, the edit summary was about dates and overlinking, but somehow the edit itself removed about a third of the article's text. I assume this was a mistake, but whatever you were trying to do the first time didn't take, so the article is now back to the previous version from a day ago. AlexiusHoratius 18:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking for some advise

With all the long term conflicts concerning the FLG articles and the bahavior of some editors, what do you think is the best course of action?--PCPP (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, I have just posted a message to the admin who closed the SPI on Dilip rajeev. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• New investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dilip rajeev. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on template:fx. I really do appreciate your comments.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are most welcome. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Venus Williams

Thanks for editing Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova's page If you have time, could you do the same job for Venus' page? That would be really really appreciated.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vswfan (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your good wishes. I will still check in from time to time for messages on my talk page... I do hope there is some day a resolution. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 04:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Update

Hi. I came across this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dilip_rajeev/Archive.

I have been working with User:White_Adept / User:Dilip_rajeev in the Sathya Sai Baba article since Jan 09.

Edit-warring in Sathya Sai Baba Article:

• User:White_Adept started editing the Sathya Sai Baba article since Jan 8th 2009. With in 10 days he made 190+ edits - completely rewrote the article with 90% Criticism. During his edits he added material banned by second arbitration as well as several other unreliable sources . He was not willing to remove the banned material inspite of talk page discussions and kept adding it back. Finally it ended in Arbitration enforcement Case. [5]. In this case he was warned that if he continues to add 'questionable source' sanctions will be imposed. After this case he was quiet for a while and then again he started pushing his agenda afterwards.

Even recently after his socket puppet investigation he editwarred with me and Admin atleast 4 times to add a source declared as unreliable by the WP:RS. This POV pushing ended finally after the Admin reminded him of his earlier enforcement case. What was weird was that I noticed that he deleted the Admin warning from his talk page the very next day. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dilip_rajeev&diff=prev&oldid=289882479.

He is a POV warrior with noregards for wikipedia rules even arbitration ruling. His edits in wikipedia definitely looks questionable. I thought I would keep you posted about this user's POV pushing on the Sathya Sai Baba article. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. I have the very same experience on Persecution of Falun Gong and Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, which I had successfully collaborated on with another editor for months. He came along like a battering ram, rewrote most of the article, inserted a considerably amount of pro-Falun Gong bias, and turning it into a NPOV nighmare which made me decide to stay away thereafter. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I've been watching your edits on Patrick Henry College. Good work! American Eagle (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Aw, shucks. Thank you kindly. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

MDY on Evanescence

Just curious about this edit you made to Evanescence. When was it decided to MDY'ify (and/or DMY'ify) ISO dates in citations? Last I heard they were working on an automatic translation for ISO dates, similar to what is done on Commons. If you don't mind, I'd like to revert just those date changes...everything else looks good. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, WP:MOSNUM states that dates in the article must have the same format, ditto for the reference section, although there is no requirement for the former to be the same as the latter. I do not know when it came in, but I do not believe it is recent. As I understand, autoformatting has been switched off in citation templates. Since I noticed there were a mix of such dates in the references, I went about unifying them. Hope this answers your question. undo if you wish, I will not oppose. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• another thing: if they bring in autoformatting with ISO dates only, it may cause the body text's date formats to be different to the ISO dates. There has been a huge debate on autoformatting which only closed out in mid April, and somehow I don't think it's on the cards for quite a few months. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good points, though the template you added to the top, if I recall, was intended to force the citation templates to format in a fixed way, so hopefully that won't be an issue. I'm all for uniform appearance everywhere else...I just have this very odd urge to see citation templates be formattable. Wasn't aware autoformatting in citations debate had concluded, but then again, I tend to avoid Wikipedia space like the plague. Regardless, you've made your case. I'll leave 'em alone :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I can understand that the idea of autoformatting of dates can be quite appealing. I think you are quite wise to stay away from the WP pages. It can be quite stressful, with all the politicking which goes on there. Happy editing! Ohconfucius (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

About Dates

By linking a date you mean this, January 1 or this, January 1 Sorry, i;m confused, and the length of those two articles whose links yu left for me only confused me more. Can you explain please? Thanks. Suede67 (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• The practice of linking (putting square brackets around) chronological items, like [[January 1]], [[2009-01-01]] or [[January 1]], [[2009]], related principally to automatic formatting of dates into January 1, 2009 or 1 January 2009 etc by the wiki software in accordance with user preferences. It was confirmed by a community vote in April 2009 that the linking of dates was undesirable for the most part. I wasn't aware you were doing the latter, with the <ref> tags, and I certainly do not see the utility of it. I hope that answers your question. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I see, thanks for the information, i'll try remove the links asap. And normally i dont "do the latter", unless there is a citation needed to prove that the particular event happened on that particular date. Thanks for your help! Suede67 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dates

Ill get onto it (probably in a few days when I go to update it). I had went on how it was done the previous season, and did not realize that the date linking deal changed. At the earliest, I will get it this Sunday Morning/Afternoon (EDT), unless someone else gets to it first. Whammies Were Here 10:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• No worries, whenever. I just thought I'd let you know, to save you from making yet more unnecessary links in the weeks/months to come. You could probably just as well leave the blue dates for now. There is a whole army of people lined up with semi-automated means of removing those blue dates, in a fraction of the time it would take you to do the job manually. However, if you would like to avail yourself of the means for when the injunction is lifted, the script is User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js, as are the instructions to install. If you need help installing it, please let me know. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk)

Date linking

Thanks for letting me know, will save me a lot of time. Geraldk (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

DMY date thingy

Couldn't you add the "use dmy dates" templates to the bottom of the articles, and not to the top? Considering that that kind of template will be, theoretically, on every single article we have, it seems like a good idea to me to hide it from view. --Conti|✉ 12:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree it would be less obtrusive, and will do that from now on. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! :) --Conti|✉ 12:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Caxias

Hello! About linking dates, I must confess that I didn't know that. I simply took another siege article and changed the information, but not the style. - --Lecen (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok

Hello. I have read your message. The article I have created it to me to notice that the player (Laurence Doe) was now in a Spanish team and not in a club of Equatorial Guinea. But in some web sites of statistics of football, yet he was figuring that he was playing for Renacimiento FC. It brings over of the dates, it was my mistake that I already have corrected. Ok, thanks for the information.--Kolins (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, and happy editing! Ohconfucius (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Kate Moss' Mum deprecates arbitration

Hi, Thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that you have been linking some dates when you created Romania at the Rugby World Cup recently. This practice of linking dates for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. Please see WP:LINKING and WP:MOSNUM. Furthermore, for your information, there is an temporary Arbcom injunction on mass linking/delinking of chronological elements. I'm happy to respond to any inquiries you may have about the matter. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, another self-appointed bureaucracy within wikipedia. I really don't have a scooby what you're on about, but good luck with it.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Not sure what Kate Moss' mum has to do with it, but it makes as much sense as what you wrote on my talk page!

The material was obviously cut and pasted. I would never use a date in which the year came first.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Ohconfucius (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 13:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks you for your supportive responses. It's nice to know that some people here are still sane. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are most welcome. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• I moved the material you put on my talk page to the discussion. It sounded like it was written for the discussion page since it talked about me, rather than to me. If I was in error, please feel free to remove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I already made a brief post to the Arbcom discussion about you, or rather Katz's involvement in your "warning". If you look at your talk page history, I originally intended to frame it as a reply to Erik and Katz, but decided not to reinstate their warnings as you had already removed it. That explains why you were referred to in the third person. That said, there's no harm in my post being copied to the Arbcom discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ohconfucius, saying something violates a policy/guideline doesn't actually make it do so. You know perfectly well that what I wrote, and how it was presented, had nothing whatsoever to do with admin actions or the "uninvolved" policy. As far as I know, we are encouraged to try to help other editors, and to give advice before someone potentially crosses a line, not after. I realize that you may be frustrated with the ArbCom situation, but please assume good faith (or at least do me the courtesy of asking why I did something) before making incorrect judgements about my actions. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't want to further escalate, and I apologise. I see your message was carefully crafted, but as you can see, it was construed by Niteshift as a warning, and I was merely responding in that light. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup up poorly formatted dates

Thanks again for you for your response in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Cleanup up poorly formatted dates. I have some follow up questions. In your response you referenced both a page containing a list of problem dates and also a discussion that included several points including the apparent lack of progress in reaching a conclusion from the April poll. I'm not sure I understand your intent if you meant to convey a message other than here is some recommended reading. Could you clarify? Also,In your opinion (knowing that everything is still unresolved), do you think we are headed toward eventually turning off the $wgUseDynamicDates option? Do you think my proposal is a worthy endeavor or more likely a waste of time? There seemed to be an interest in addressing the date format anomalies in the month following the poll, but it appears that this interest has fizzled out. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• The links were posted to for your information. I place equal importance in unifying date formats as I do to delinking dates, but as I am precluded from delinking in any great measure, I usually now target my efforts on articles which have few or no linked dates. I am aware you don't want your actions to be embroiled in controversy. From what I read in the Arbcom case, I do not believe we Dynamic dates will be switched off any time soon. Correcting misformatted errors in that case would not be very productive use of effort, in my view. The way I see things is that there is such a groundwell of opinion to largely delinked dates that we will see greater numbers of editors stepping forward and removing links which cause the display problems, probably with Lightmouse's script, which does the job of correcting formatting errors well in the volley. If, on the other hand, DD is switched off, the sea of red links will spur editors into action to delink these. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you. Judging from the lack of responses, there does not appear to be much interest (either that or I turned everyone away with my "don't make this a debate" clause.) So I will probably shelve my efforts. As for Lightmouse's scripts, I wonder what will become of those. The arbitration committee seems set to ban Lightmouse for a year generally and indefinitely for automation. Other that the edit helper scripts, I'm not aware that the majority of his source code has been made publicly available. That's a lot of potentially lost knowledge and experience. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Yes, nothing is upsetting me more in this case than the ban on Lightmouse. His scripting and botting have helped make WP so much better, and it pains me that this is the thanks he gets. AFAIK, all his javascript resides in his subdirectory, and if I understand him well enough, I do not think he will "do a 'Tennis expert' and delete everything in his userspace. It's just a shame to lose his talents, especially as there is such a lot of work to be done. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you "brutal" copyedits to my little essay!

Much appreciated. I otherwise thought that a "workhop" sounded quite funny! :-) Cheers.--HJensen, talk 07:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

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

NowCommons: File:HK Sedanchair.jpg

File:HK Sedanchair.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:HK Sedanchair.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:HK Sedanchair.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:HK dockyard 1894.jpg is now available as Commons:File:HK dockyard 1894.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:HK Cityhall1875.jpg is now available as Commons:File:HK Cityhall1875.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Well-sleuthed

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your investigation and follow-through of duplicated text at Shaquille O'Neal. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping keep the project free. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the redirect...

Just recreate it with the redirect only. When you created the redirect, you left everything else in the article, so all I saw was the copyvio. Just recreate is as a redirect only. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology

Thank you for your help in fixing the article. Take care. Dr.K. logos 07:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• You are most welcome. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Johnston (singer)

Why did you move the personal life to the top? His career is of more significance than his personal life. On another note, the reformatting of the dates was good- do you have a script for that, or did you do it manually? J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed that in a great many bios, the personal life gets put first. Anyway, I think it fits better as you learn where he comes from - he's just a kid and there's not much to distract from his 'career' section.

  I use a text editor for reformatting dates. Lightmouse worked on code in his monobook script to convert ISO dates to dmy or mdy format, but he removed that functionality. I understand there may be a few bugs. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Metadata

Yep, everything in my first edit is manually performed. Basically, my primary concern was converting |author= to |first= and |last= (where appropriate), since this generates more easily handled metadata, and even more importantly, presents the data is a uniform "last, first" format, which is the typical form we see here and elsewhere. Secondary is the proper use of the |work= and |publisher= fields..."work" describes the publication, "publisher" describes the company itself. Very important difference when it comes to citations. I just like uniformity, which also encapsulates my wrapping all "ref name" fields in quotation marks, which also ensures everything works properly regardless of what is included in that field. I don't personally mine metadata, but it is done, so I like to ensure everything works right for those end users. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation. I will try to be more precise in using those templates. I always use refnames without spaces, so I never need the quote marks, I see you also use such strings, but have your own system for the names. Someone already told me about the differences between |work= (for The Times) and |publisher= (for News International Ltd). I admit to being confused when there are parameters for |first= |last= |author= |coauthor= , and exactly when these should be used. You also reorder the parameters - Is this important? Ohconfucius (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: order, naa, not important, I just have a logical approach to the layout...url first; title second; publication third; authors, pages, other errata fourth; and various dates fifth. Doesn't really matter, but it *feels* right to me...kind of an order of importance, if you will. I admit, I rarely include the publisher field, as I find it fairly unnecessary to the citation, especially if a wikilink can be provided for the work or publication. Regarding author fields, if there is a first and last name available, I would always use |first= and |last= (note that middle names, of course, belong in the "first" field). |Author= can be used if there is only one name, or other generic term (in the Boyle article, for example, "Staff" and a poster's username). More appropriate to use "author" in this case than "last". |coauthor= is used when more than one author is given for a source, and should be formatted in the "last, first; last, first" style. Note the colon separating the names. As for the refnames, yeah, my style is an abbreviation of the publication plus an abbreviated ISO format, with a "-2", "-3", etc, if disambiguation is needed. Any time you need help or clarification for citations, just let me know. That is definitely my speciality on Wiki. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:John/ArbcomAppeal

Sorry, I only noticed your comment there tonight. Does that mean you've read the damn thing? If so, you're definitely in a minority I would say. I'd thank you for your support but that would only be more evidence that we were part of the great date-linking conspiracy. I think we're supposed to shuffle forward to the salt mine without making eye contact at this point, so, "Budem zdorovy" to you.[6] --John (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I have indeed read it. I am a "willing combattant", in the sense that I deliberately fought for the side, upholding a guideline validly passed, against entropic elements. On the other hand, I feel a little bit responsible that a bystander like you was unwittingly sucked into this vortex. This farce is one for the annals although it's not as sexy or newsworthy as Scientology or Ayn Rand. This case throws the spotlight on everything which is wrong about WP's arbitration process - the open-ended procedure, the vested interests, Arbs' and clerks' incompetence. I really don't get why they don't drop the charges against you. Having said that, the sanctions against you will have infinitely less impact on your WP work in practice than the pain you must endure for the blemish on your good name. I'm not off to the salt mine, by any means - and I hope you will carry on carrying on too! Ohconfucius (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:20090605mdbchina.png)

Thanks for uploading File:20090605mdbchina.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Inflation

I have absolutely no idea what your comments here are supposed to mean, in particular your "Such data, unsourced, is tantamount to synthesis" which appears to be a pretty clear insinuation that these are figures I've somehow fabricated. Every single use of an {{inflation}} template by me – on this or any other article – clearly shows the data set used. – iridescent 14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.

• All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
• Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
• Tony1 (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Greg L (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.
• Kotniski (talk · contribs) reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, topic banned for 3 months
• Placed on a 12 month editing restriction: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), 2008Olympian (talk · contribs), Colonies Chris (talk · contribs), SkyWalker (talk · contribs), HJensen (talk · contribs), Dudesleeper (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs), Tennis expert (talk · contribs), and G-Man (talk · contribs)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months.
• Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is topic banned indefinitely, banned for 6 months, and placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee,

AGK 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey...Sharapova

Writing in referral to the comment i made on sharapova's talk page a while back about getting it to GA. Summer is almost here and i'll have plenty of time to help. P.S. have u got rid of tennis expert, hoping you have! OgiBear (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Great to hear from you! You may not be aware that Tennis expert has exercised his "right to vanish" from the project. The WikiTennis world is all the more serene, for a month now. I am with you on the WP:GA challenge. I know there are others lurking who will help in a concerted push, although the attempt to get Serena Williams into GA shape stalled in mid-may. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK. We need to first sort out who all will help us. I think it would be best if a group of us each did a piece of it everyday for a week or so. Trust me, i've worked on articles were only bits and drabs are done at a time as i'm sure you have. It doesn't go anywhere. To my knowledge there's a tag you can place on articles stating that it's under heavy editing isn't there? OgiBear (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you harmonised my contribution on Caonima ?

Dear, why did you removed my contribution on caonima ? why harmonized it? I think you should put a message on the user comment page when you remove a contribution. So waiting for the explanation. quite open not to add it again if I am convinced. hehe! Froggy helps ;-) (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I went to the link you posted, to find that the entry had been "harmonised", so that's why I reverted your edit. I don't think it was because I disagreed with it. My apologies for any offense caused. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• • No offence, otherwise I will not have written dear at the begining of my message >_<. I wrote that: "Now the original Caonima video are not available in main Chinese video websites: youku even write that: "Search results may not comply with the relevant laws, regulations and policy, not shown" so, the goal is to say that the caonima has been "harmonised", and that even the video sharing website say it clearly. so that is not just propaganda from the western world. Thus I still do not get why delete it. so, we put it back ? PS: for your information, a few time when I tried to connect to your talk page from china... I lose the connection... Froggy helps ;-) (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Wikipedia is known to be on the blocklist in the Great Firewall, perhaps your being able to edit is a sign that things are loosening up slightly. Happy editing! Ohconfucius (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • To post here, I need to activate my proxy, load this page, click on update, then desactivate my proxy, type the message, and post it... But back to the main subject. Why did you delete my update on caonima? still waiting a good reason not to put it back >_< Froggy helps ;-) (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The phrase you posted is a standardised legal disclaimer of liability of the type which is and can be used by many publications. I don't see anything particularly significant or ground-breaking about it. What you may be hinting at is what may be what is written 'between the lines'. This is in itself not sufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship, and it may fail WP:SYN. Ohconfucius (talk)

3RR

Did you warn Editor:John Smith about edit warring? Or is your focus just on my edits? Don't bother to answer. My interest is the article...not the editors.--Buster7 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• He only clocked it twice when I left the message for you, so there was no reason to warn him. Anyway, the objective was really to let you know that this forcefulness on your part is beginning to look like bullying to me. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I count four time he deleted the entire notice but nevermind. You see what you know. Your style prohibits co-operation. The hostilities are over. I abdicate my Throne of Bullyness to you. Your good at it.--Buster7 (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I really dislike your tone. I only reverted you once, and tried you engage you in discussion. Only you're not buying. Now you are resorting to being downright hostile. Just for clarification, does "abdicate" mean that you will not continue with your continued warring to include the notice so that we can have a discussion? If it does not, you don't need me to tell you where I think you should go. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • The Land of Milk and Honey?--Buster7 (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Glad that you can stay humourous. I'll take that as a rhetorical response. But anywhere's fine, so long as you get out of my hair (not that I have much left) about the Censor's notice. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Monobook

Hi Ohconfucius, just a heads-up to let you know I've asked on WP:AE to delete your monobook.js since I guess it got forgotten in the rush. Regards, AKAF (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I know you don't agree with delinking, but I have not breached the injunction. YOu are incorrect that my monobook script was forgotten. It was in fact already nobbled pre-emptively by User:PhilKnight back in April. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Please have a look:2008 Guizhou riot, may be it needs a new name? Arilang ^talk 00:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Green Dam can be uninstalled

I think the "impossible to uninstall" claim you made is not quite right.

Here's the source:

http://www.cse.umich.edu/~jhalderm/pub/gd/

Here's the relevaqnt quote:

"Green Dam allows users who know its administrator password to uninstall the software. We tested the uninstaller and found that it appears to effectively remove Green Dam from the computer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.77.226 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the information. Well, I did say on that same article's talk page that The Epoch Times was not reliable. Could this be proof? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: MW Internal Error

I'm afraid I can't tell you what went wrong here - this error appears to be related to the Mediawiki software, which I don't have access to. You'd be better off asking at the Technical Village Pump. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, it hasn't reoccurred, so it was probably a temporary glitch. Thanks anyway. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Britain's Got Talent (series 3) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. I42 (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well

You know we have quiet a few of underage admins/editors. I think this comment that includes "stoned" and "laid... seems inappropriate, though I note your good faith. Would you terribly mind fixing it? Thanks.--Caspian blue 04:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a good weekend.--Caspian blue 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• You too! Ohconfucius (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Globes

Greetings from the Land of Milk and Honey. During our recent conversation, I couldn't help but notice your 9 globes. I hope you don't mind that I have absconded with a copy of them for my User page. I will send payment soon.--Buster7 (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• soon, please, would be great.. Money's too tight to mention ;-) Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

		A Lucky Penny
		Times are tough in the LofMandH. This penny is offerered as payment for the creative globes that I believe [Editor:ohconfucius] may have gathered from hither and yon. It is my sincere wish that any dissagreements of the past be lost in the archives.--Buster7 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I no longer recall where I got the globes from. I'm indeed sorry to hear that milk and honey are running low, and am more than pleased to accept the token of your sincerity appreciation. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's editing of the kidnapping

I suspect the only way that we'll get movement here is for an administrative / project focused editor to put Jimbo as an editor up for violating policy or 3rr. I know I'm administratively incapable of doing this, and also not overly committed to anything other than the appropriate encyclopedic recording of this issue within Wikipedia. You seem passionate, have you considered it?

• Trying to get Jimbo sanctioned is going to be very tough - Our 'spiritual leader' has many devotees who are prepared to lie down (and die) for him; and the boat has long gone out for a WP:AN3, what with the requirement for warnings etc. The best we can do is to kick up enough of a stink about it to make sure something similar doesn't ever happen again. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DATEBOT

you said "If you edit an article on my watchlist, I don't have any reason to check whether there was vandalism before your edit. But when a bot does it, you know there's no human checking for vandalism. So there's a real cost to having a bot flood your watchlist."

Your comment presupposes that everyone who edits an article checks for vandalism or other faults whilst doing so. In my experience, this ain't so. It is well known that vandalism can go undetected for months and years. So, I don't quite understand the argument, and what that has anything to do with the proposed datebot... Ohconfucius (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Granted, not everyone who edits an article checks for vandalism - if you see an edit that's tagged "AWB" or something of the sort, you assume not. Ditto on people who go around making formatting changes to a whole host of articles. But most of the time when someone actually edits an article, they pay enough attention to it that they pick up on the obvious vandalism. So when a lower-traffic article pops up on your watchlist, you look at the edit summary, you look at the user name, and you make a call. But when a bot floods your watchlist, there's no way to check up on every article's it has edited. There's no way to see whether someone has written "poopy poopy poopy" across the article an hour earlier. So it stays there until some anon stumbles onto the article and removes it - and not knowing about diffs or undo, they simply remove the sentence, thereby deleting a useful bit of information. If that happens once, if one article is degraded as a result of the bot run, then the bot run is a net negative to the project. You're talking about a change that is purely cosmetic. A purely cosmetic change isn't worth it if results in a decline in article quality. "Pretty" does not trump WP:ENC. Guettarda (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Again, you make a number of other supposition here, and unlikely ones at that — firstly that the vandal has struck within the same 24hours prior to a bot run, secondly that someone else has not spotted the vandalism. Then, there's another bit I don't get. The third supposition that the person removes "poopy poopy poopy" and the useful bit to which it was attached/appended (rather than removing just "poopy poopy poopy". Oh, maybe fourthly, perhaps if whoever comes along removes the citation at the same time rather than clicking on it to check what the source says. However, if it wasn't sourced, we don't really care if it was any good or not - we generally assume it's useless. You are talking about the concurrence of several unlikely events, whose probability is calculated by multiplying the individual probabilities of each event- say if each event has a probability of occurrence of 50%, the probability of all 4 happening together is a meagre 6.25%. No, "pretty" does not trump WP:ENC, but by saying that delinking dates is "a purely cosmetic change", I believe you may significantly underestimate the effect of dilution of useful links. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)