Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question regarding the independence of Template:EngvarB

Does the ENGVAR script recognize the "Use X English" templates as implying {{ EngvarB}}? That is to say, if I'm adding {{ Use South African English}} to an article which already has EngvarB, should I remove the EngvarB or just let it stand? - htonl ( talk) 09:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Unlinking

At Solidarity (South African trade union), you unlinked both "South Africa" and "trade union" in the lede. Why? -- Taejo| 대조 10:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

If I may answer despite not being Ohconfucius: I suspect it is because of the MoS on linking. I know South Africa is on the list of "major geographic features and locations" not to be linked, and I suppose "trade union" is considered an "everyday word understood by most users in context". I might suggest the whole phrase "South African trade union" could be linked to Trade unions in South Africa. - htonl ( talk) 10:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Thanks to both of you. -- Taejo| 대조 07:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Indeed: linking as specifically as possible really raises the quality of the system. Tony (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Date fixing script

Why are dates being changed in such edits as here? This does not seem to make much sense, is it what you really intended the script to do? Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 12:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

OK. Thanks for the reply. Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 06:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

BLPPROD

Hi! Thanks for your maintenance work around the project. I encourage you to take the time to re-read our policy on BLP PRODs, as it seems you believed Dana Schechter was eligible, although the policy states rather clearly that it requires that the article contain no sources in any form, which isn't the case here. :) · Salvidrim!·  ✉ 04:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

And in addition, BLPPRODs can only be used on articles created after March 18, 2010, which is another reason the article mentioned above isn't eligible. You are welcome to PROD it if you still believe its deletion to be uncontroversial. :) · Salvidrim!·  ✉ 04:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

EngvarB

AWB converts template codes from the redirect to the target title automatically — you may need to file a bug request at WP:AWB if it's doing so incorrectly in this instance, but I did not manually apply the change and have no way of being able to tell within AWB if it's correct or incorrect. Bearcat ( talk) 06:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi

When you got the time fix the refs on Pleasure (short film). Im no good at combining refs. Much appreciated.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC) reply

A late Thank you! :)-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply
A royal wedding coming up in Sweden this weekend could you take look at the refs of an article about that when you find the time Wedding of princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O’Neill. Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
When you got the time please check out the refs on Claudia Galli, Richard Ulfsäter, Starke man, Fjällbackamorden and Agneta Myhrman. Much appreciated.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you!.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Woolwich

Hi Ohconfucius. You reverted me with this edit. I added that content as a result of this request on the article's talk page by an IP. I will not revert you, but I would ask that you please comment in the talk page thread to say that you reverted it, and explain why. It's likely that the IP may not know how to check the edit history of the article and will wonder what happened to the content I added. Thanks! -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 07:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, you have your first objector to the revert. I think. I was a bit confused at first when I read it. ;) -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 18:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply

2010 assault in Kerala

Perhaps you should take another look at that article to see whether your remarks in its renaming discussion are really correct. — BarrelProof ( talk) 09:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Woolwich attack

I have restored some of the previous edits and left detailed edit summaries. In dealing with a case of this type, it's best to stick to the simplest statements, like a legal report, and not try to turn it into expressive literature. It means using more and simpler sentences.

For example the sentence "The assailants A and B were known to security" does tell us the names of the assailants, but it doesn't state who the assailants were. That information becomes adjunct to the lesser fact- that they were known to security.

The most important fact is- "The assailants were A and B". This must be the lead sentence in the section about their identities.

It is a matter of effective report writing as against journalism. You presume that your reader knows nothing, and you tell them the basics in simple sentences.

Amandajm ( talk) 06:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for your courtesy note. I do appreciate it. I shall take your criticism in the spirit in which it was intended. With respect, WP is not a journalism project, although I know some journalism profs use it to set assignments. WP's an encyclopaedia, so we need to make sure prose isn't oversimplified, so it doesn't go the wrong way and become Janet and John book. I really fail to see what advantage this revert had over my text. If you spotted any ambiguities in my text, you are free to amend it to remove same, but you should not do so solely because of your personal preference for grade one literature. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 11:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The justification for reducing the image to upright and calling it "portrait size" is nonsense.
The example given in the manual of style that is suggested as suitable for reduction to "upright" is an '"unusually tall" (I quote) image, a tall skinny picture of an Egyptian god. The notion that anything of "portrait format" i.e. upright rather than horizontal (landscape) ought to be sized as "upright" in the article is erroneous.
There are two good reasons for sizing something as "upright": 1. lack of space, 2. an unusually tall thin image. In this case neither applies. There is plenty of space, and the format of the picture is a normal photo shape.

Amandajm ( talk) 13:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Concerning the Janet and John change, yes, it is simplistic language. However, it needs to be stated that the men charged at the police. It is one of the facts. I suggest that an "and" could be placed between the two events, rather than turning what should be a clear statement into a "when" clause describing the point in the action at which the police fired. If this was not a case of serious crime, it would not be so important to state the matters in such clear fashion. Regarding the shots, it is possible that all eight shots did not hit the men, so it ought not be implied that they did. (however, if they didn't they might have hit a bystander... let's not go there!) Amandajm ( talk) 13:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Yeah. OK! Amandajm ( talk) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Hi, re: the Woolwich attack, I think it's clear to see it's a hoody. Look at the pics from him on the road. He's also wearing it in this youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7Ng1cQvSuzs

  • @ Oxr033:: "Hoodie" vs "T-shirt" isn't a detail many would give a shit over anyhow, but we must avoid saying "hoodie" when all of the sources say "T-shirt". WP is not allowed to have opinions. Please note that I'm not arguing that it wasn't a hoodie. We are only allowed to say what the sources say, and they say universally he was in a T-shirt. The text is accurate insofar as saying he was "reportedly wearing a [motif-bearing] T-shirt". So, to clarify, we are not saying he was wearing one, just that news reports said he was wearing one. What's there already is good enough for WP:V. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Another tool to protect article texts from formatting

Not sure if your scripts are protecting for {{ not a typo}} (and its possible redirect variants) yet... ? Dl2000 ( talk) 00:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Coaltrack

I have left a message on F's talk page concerning the re-insertion of this. More emphasis may need to be given to the fact that he was extracted from Kenya by British officials.

Is it you that is still fiddling with that pic? It looks bad and is unnecessary as it can be viewed at that scale on mobile phones. If it is not allowing a wide gap next to the quote, this is not important. If it is actually encroaching on the quote and blocking it out when you look at it, then it's a problem with your settings. There are there people who have moved it left. and enlarged it.

I have also messaged an editor about the reinsertion of Choudary's waffle. I am beginning to feel like a real bitch. Need coffee! Amandajm ( talk) 03:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for the heads up. It was me resizing and repositioning the image. There's a discussion opened yesterday about it. The left alignment is the real problem for me; mobile users prob don't care because they won't see it. Landscape images are fine. but portraits render too large, so it seems the problem isn't my setting by its de facto treatment as a horizontal image is. If you think his facial details are not sufficiently discernible at the present |upright| size, could I suggest that we cropped the picture to head-and-shoulders only? --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Dates

Hello, I have just recovered from minutes of laughing at you. Something called (Script-assisted style fixes per WP:TIES and date formats) just zipped through an article in which I have an interest and changed all the dates of The Times newspaper so they are now the opposite of as published! Why? Its seriously daft! Eddaido ( talk) 11:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Good heavens, I'd no idea you had responded, I've just come back to see if anything had happened, been watching the watchlist like a hawk. But I did explain. The Times and I think many other newspapers dates their publications in the format May 27, 2013 and so all the references have that style. You go through and change them all - why? It seems to me very silly. Right now The TImes says its publication date is Friday, May 31, have a look. Eddaido ( talk) 07:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
And which article did I do that to? Our guidelines say we should choose our own date format for each article. We don't necessarily follow the one given in the source itself. For American articles we would tend to use mdy, and for British (among others) we would tend to use dmy. If I didn't align the dates, imagine for two citations in an article, one from The Times (that uses mdy) and the other from The Guardian (that uses dmy), you would have one citation that reads May 27, 2013 and another that reads 27 May 2013, and that inconsistency is not what we want. And if you're really interested how we got there, please comb through the archives by searching for "dmy" or "mdy" at WT:MOSNUM. It may sound funny to you, but I like to line up the ducks all in a row. And if you happen across funnier proclivities/preoccupations than mine here on WP, please be sure to share it with me ;-) Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, there's making up names and signature styles. But seriously is it not quite daft? Why don't you go back and read what you have written above then pause for a moment to think about it. Eddaido ( talk) 10:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I've been thinking about this and working on this dates gig for more than two years now. Maybe not catching the joke just proves I'm not as clever as you. Conversely that could mean you're not as clever as me and that the joke's on you ;-). Anyway, you know where to find me if you want dates flipped in any article of yours. Of course, if you still laugh at me and want me to understand why, you need to let me in on the joke and which article you are commenting on. If you're not prepared to at least put me out of my misery, then I'd ask you to please stop trolling my talk page. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Interesting you should have introduced the topic troll. I see your only continuing activity in the same line is to follow where I have been working. I hope you have enjoyed your little jokes, long may they please you and your pal who wrote to me at your request. Eddaido ( talk) 00:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I mentioned your edit

At Talk:2013_Woolwich_attack#Applicability_of_Category:Military_history_of_London. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC) reply

ISO and WP:MOSNUM insistence on the spacing of the temperature symbol

Hi, could you please comment on this thread? Tony (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Something to look into...

Recently noticed an edit some time back on a Birmingham, UK subject. Just wondering if that was a typo? Dl2000 ( talk) 02:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Temperature formatting

Is it possible to add to the script this correction: all replaced by 70 ºC? [I've inserted nowiki, but still can't see the plus en bee, es pee semicolon.]

  • 70º (just a space after the º, with no C and no F, presume C)
  • 70ºC
  • 70 ºC

Thx, Tony (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Issue

Hi, DMacks has kindly pointed out a within-template issue of changing hyphen to dash. Could you please advise? And the temperature function seems to be working well—thanks! Tony (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Your recent AWB-edits.

Hi there. It looks like you have used AWB to replace Fußball-Bundesliga with Bundesliga like in this edit. I know you are not a big fan of the word "Fußball", but per WP:NOTBROKEN we shouldn't "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. When you fix other issues in the article, it wouldn't be a big problem to avoid these redirects, but when that is the only thing you do I'd call it trivial editing and is not what you should use AWB for.

You should also know that you have moved a lot of articles from Category:Fußball-Bundesliga players to the red-linked Category:Bundesliga players. The correct way of renaming a category is to list them for speedy renaming at WP:CFDS, and a bot will move the pages from the old category to the new category after 48 hours. Mentoz86 ( talk) 06:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for the advice. I actually have nothing against the word "Fußball" as such, if that's what is agreed upon. But now most German football articles have lost their "Fußball" through consensus. Many articles have been moved ('Fußball-Bundesliga' has been moved to 'Bundesliga'), and those categories won't be red-linked for long. CFSs were placed more than 48 hours ago. I'm just doing some minor fixes whilst anticipating the revised categories. regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 10:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Indeed, Fußball is gone from the article-titles, which is a good thing. But can you tell me what the noticeable effect of changing Bundesliga to Bundesliga is ? I believe that edits like that is violating "Rules of use" #4 at WP:AWB, in addition to WP:NOTBROKEN. Adding red-linked cats when the working blue-linked cats will be renamed by a bot in a couple of hours, should stop immediately. Instead you should use your time more constructive, like changing the titles of the 50ish Category:Fußball-Bundesliga seasons articles (and other similar articles) you have moved ("The 1989–90 Fußball-Bundesliga was the 27th season..."), and remove other visible mentions of Fußball whereever you find it. Cheers, Mentoz86 ( talk) 15:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
    • There are 6,585 articles on Wikipedia where Fußball-Bundesliga is mentioned (not piped), so you have plenty work to do instead of changing piped wikilinks that noone notices that you've changed. :) Mentoz86 ( talk) 16:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for counting the number of instances of unpiped 'Fußball-Bundesliga'. My intention is not to make inconsequential changes but to use the opportunity of updating the categories to make other style changes to the articles. Therefore, removing the 'Fußball-' shouldn't be the only changes I'm making to those articles. At the rate I'm going, my head start on the bots won't last long, and then, the risk of me making inconsequential changes if I run those categories will increase. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
        • But you shouldn't remove articles from the blue-linked category, even if it will be fix in a day or two, it will be a day or two when the article is not a part of a category it should be part of. And if I understand you correct, you do this because you want to use AWB to also remove the 'Fußball-' in piped wikilinks? Mentoz86 ( talk) 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Gosh, is that all that you're upset about to keep going on in this way? You don't seem to have fully understood my previous replies. No, the primary object isn't to remove 'Fußball-' and a fuller explanation of what I do can be found on my user page. I've been processing other footballer articles and I just thought I'd do the job of recategorising and cleaning up whilst I was running through these categories – it's more efficient. If it makes you any happier, I won't do it until the cats have been moved. Cheers, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
            • I'm upset that you do the unnecessary things, but not do the necessary things. You have moved 100-something (or even more) articles in the last week, without cleaning up after you (changing the title in lead, and adjusting sort-key and templates) . Instead you use AWB to remove a blue-linked category and add a red-link category (that a bot will fix in a couple of days anyways) combined with removing piped redirected links, which isn't what AWB is meant to be used to. Let the bot do the categories so that all of the articles stays in the correct category, and remove piped redirects when you have other things to do in those pages. Mentoz86 ( talk) 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Your script is still broken and/or you're not checking your edits - see this where you removed valid links to 2004 in Norwegian football et al. Giant Snowman 10:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Looking at your contribs, you made over 30 edits today at 10:52 (UTC), how on earth are you checking them all? Giant Snowman 10:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
@ GiantSnowman: - Looks like the script is working as designed - see the documentation at User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM_dates#Overview_2. GoingBatty ( talk) 12:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Well then they are not checking the edits then, which is considerably worse. Giant Snowman 12:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
[[2004 in Norwegian football|2004]] is what I would call a deceptive piped link. It seems to be a convention that years are not linked piped to something that is not a year article, so they are systematically removed by the script. If editors want 1994 in Norwegian football linked, the place for this is unpiped in the see also section. As to checking, they were, thanks. You asserted that I "made over 30 edits today at 10:52 (UTC)". Truth is I saved over 30 edits today at 10:52 (UTC), after having checked the output was as desired. The high number of saves at that time reflects my workflow using multiple windows. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The [[2004 in Norwegian football|2004]] link (and similar) is standard in footballer statistics tables, and the edit I have linked to above shows you removing some but not all, hence why I raised a concern. All should be left in. Giant Snowman 13:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The inconsistent treatment of links is due to the inconsistent target type. The piped year links were unlinked. OTOH, the piped season links are obviously, er, season links, so aren't misleading in the same way and not treated by the script. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Can your script convert the year links to season links? That would be the ideal solution. Giant Snowman 13:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Do you like this (done manually)? If not, give me the parameters (ie specifically what year links to what season), and i can try working them in. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
yes, that's what I mean. Giant Snowman 14:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Don't see a way of automating that, but that I was able to find a more specific link proves again that the 'year in Norwegian football' was too non-specific to have been useful anyway. I'll try working the principle into future edits. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
( talk page stalker) Might be good to review WP:YEARLINK to see if any clarification is needed for such cases. It may not be obvious to many editors that a link to YYYY in <Country>ian football may be "germane and topical" in football articles, the MOS:LINK language tends to discourage general use of year or year-subject linking. Dl2000 ( talk) 00:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
So the Norwegian football editors (like myself) should stop linking to "YYYY in Norwegian football" and replace those links with "YYYY Tippeligaen" and similar, or is that discouraged aswell? Mentoz86 ( talk) 08:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
@ Mentoz86:, direct links to the season article are preferred / encouraged. Giant Snowman 10:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Not so much the season article, but the more specific the link is, the more relevance is contributed to the reader's understanding of the subject. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Your script is now moving valid links from the prose, see this. Giant Snowman 10:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Armando Torres III DYK

Hi. Do you wish for me to add you at the Armando Torres III DYK nomination for contributing to the article? ComputerJA ( talk) 15:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Renomination with problems remaining

Hi- I've mentioned you in the thread above. Any thoughts you have would be welcome. J Milburn ( talk) 16:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Awarded for those excellent scripts. Industrious and great contributions! Keep them going! Fai zan 12:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Fai zan 13:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply

June 2013

Stop icon

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. VQuakr ( talk) 16:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply

ANEW

A report was filed at WP:ANEW against User:Fangorn-Y. I was mulling over the report because I was troubled by your conduct on the article as well as Fangorn-Y's. While I was ruminating, Fangorn-Y reverted yet again, so they are now blocked. What disturbed me the most about your behavior was the fact that you breached WP:3RR and immediately warned Fangorn-Y (in the same minute) for edit warring. It's true that you didn't revert after you yourself were warned, but you're an experienced user, and your warning to Fangorn-Y indicates that you knew what was going on. I'm not going to block you, but consider this a warning. If you edit Edward Snowden in any way that could be construed as a revert in the next five days, you risk being blocked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply

DYK for 24th anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

The DYK project ( nominate) 08:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Date script

Hi. At this diff, User:Tony1 apparently employed your date fixing script. The first line of the article was already:

{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2012}}<!--[[WP:STRONGNAT]]-->

and the script inserted a new line above it:

{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2013}}

which seems wrong. Shouldn't it just update the existing template call's date param (or do nothing – I don't really understand the date param in the context of this particular maintenance tag)? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 09:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply

That has not happened before in my knowledge. It's because someone, in their infinite wisdom, decided to add something following the tag, whereas it was intended to stand on its line on its own. That cased the script to not see the original tag. I'll adjust the script. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Uh, that was me. AFAIK, there are just a few pieces of markup to which newlines are defined to be significant (e.g. bullet lists, single-pipe table column dividers, etc.) – everything else is supposed to ignore them. When adding this template, I wanted to document the reason for the particular format selection. I originally wanted to add a |reason= parameter to the template, but that met with some opposition, so I went with an HTML comment (which I think certainly should be ignored) instead, to which (IIRC) there was no objection. I've probably done it to less than 50 articles. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Help

Hello Ohconfucius. How do you do? Actually I needed your aid in respect to the Pakistani English. Pakistani english is almost the same as the British English. So I want to get another option named: "Pakistani spelling". So that I get the {{'''Use Pakistani English'''|date=June 2013}} instead of {{'''Use British English'''|date=June 2013}}. So please help me, how is it possible? Can you make it for me? I tried it on my userspace but met a failure. I created a custom script here, but it did not work. Please help. Fai zan 11:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Good wishes ahead of your unblock. Now I am expecting a reply. Fai zan 08:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The script will require quite substantial engineering to accommodate this, and I had no intention of creating tens of English-language variant script functions because of the complexities involved. I won't (and more importantly can't) change your copy of the script. However, focussing on the problem you raised, I would suggest that in the first instance after running the script, you should replace any such English template with the generic {{ EngvarB}} template applicable to most non-British English codes closest to British English. I will make the necessary adjustments to the script to make sure the Pakistan English templates, if there are any in the given article, are left intact. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry to confuse you. I tweaked the script, but it left a second template if there should happen to be one there already, instead of simply updating the original one, so I have reversed it for now. Working on a solution... --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Ok thanks. But I want to get is "{{'''Use Pakistani English'''|date=June 2013}}". Cannot I replace the word "British" with "Pakistani"? Just aid me for this change in the script please. Fai zan 12:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Sure, but any aid for making it automatic from the script? Fai zan 07:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • From a priorities and maintenance standpoint, I do not intend to build the script to support multiple tagging any more than is supported at present (namely British, British (Oxford), Canadian, Australian). So I'm afraid the response to your question is no, that final step is likely to remain manual. And from a technical standpoint, I will need time re-engineer the script to move the tagging towards a more generic {{ EngvarB}} that can be probably be used for articles on Australian, NZ, Indian, Pakistani Singaporean, Irish, Seth Efrikin subjects. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I want to use the Pakistani english template only on the Pakistani topical articles. Obviously the template is not designated for a global readership. Fai zan 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I think Tony's question is about the underlying similarities or differences of Pak English vs BritEnglish. And what would be the problem in using {{ EngvarB}} on Pakistani articles? The templates in themselves don't mean anything, nor are they meant to supply any guidance. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes, and I have to question the assumption that Pakistani "topical" articles are for Pakistani readers only. This is not so. Tony (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Block

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Edward Snowden. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Bbb23 ( talk) 15:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ohconfucius ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

Request reason:

Blocks are supposed to be "preventative", and this has been so positioned. Bbb23 cites the previous episode, but other than that, there can be absolutely no evidence that I was going to participate in any edit warring this time around. There was no issue of over-reliance on primary sources that I had argued about in the first dispute. Anyhoo, I backed off from the last one. Subsequently, consensus strongly backed my position, and it was the other party who got blocked.

As to the current activity that led to the block, let's look at this objectively: I made three edits related to my own concern, and that of another editor (see article tagging), that this article was already too Hong Kong-centric. one editor immediately happened to object to it. Whilst it is true that the undoing of my edit was potentially an inflammatory situation, I had no intention of reverting, and Bbb23 has no proof to the contrary. I AM FURIOUS at the twitchy "shoot first, ask questions later" response. I think I was blocked within seconds. However, by acting so fast, Bbb23 self-deprived any valid rationale; there was no WP:ROPE, and no smoking gun. I would contended that this is to punish me retrospectively for the previous episode when he couldn't exercise the trigger finger.

So in summation, this was a BAD BLOCK. Given the already heated atmosphere at Snowden, and the prejudice that now exists, it would certainly be imprudent of me to make any more content edits there for the next 7 days. Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Accept reason:

Yes, it doesn't look like blockable edit warring to me. Consecutive reverts count as one revert. Bishonen | talk 06:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC). reply

This admin looks like a gun-totin' wild-west cowboy. Is he calmly assessing the situation and providing social leadership? Or is he making it up as he goes. Must be a power surge. Tony (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply


Dear me, I go away for a few years and you two are still getting yourselves into trouble! ;-) Anyway, just thought I'd stop by in passing and send my regards - I hope you're both well. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Bbb23 only wants comments from admins. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Will know in due course. Bbb23 summarily removed my comment on his talk page relating to this clock, so I'll repost it here.

You cannot be serious!! I'm flummoxed that this and this count as reverts in your book... Other admins might be doing it, but it seems a ludicrously draconian way to exercise your admin powers. Yes, I read the policy, and what you did seems to be allowed according to the rather wide definition of what constitutes a "revert". It turns any removal of content from the field of ' battle' (used advisedly), however small, into a potentially blocking situation making it much more powerful that most people would believe. I know you were acting in good faith to cool things down, but I would sincerely advise you not to rely on "others do it" as a justification, as this is the sort of situation that reinforces the view that many admins are abusive. Just because you have a sledgehammer, doesn't mean you have to crack the proverbial nut with it.

— posted 01:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

--  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

more on "Fußball-" removals

While I'm agnostic on removing "Fußball-" from various article titles, why on Earth did you try to anglicize the names of the Regionalligas? Something like " Regionalliga North" [sic] is neither English as such, nor is it an established English-language reference to the league in question, making WP:USEENGLISH wholly inappropriate as a justification for that aspect of the page moves. Zeyes ( talk) 04:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Requested move of Deadmaus

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_3_.28to_.22Joel_Zimmerman.22.29. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC) reply

DYK hooks

Ohconfucius, I wanted to give you a heads-up about editing DYK hooks. As part of your modifications to the World of Tanks Xbox 360 Edition hook, you added a quote, "in mere days". This is a quote from the original source, but it did not appear in the article: hooks should not include anything in that is not in the article and sourced there. This is especially true of exact quotes. I have modified the article so the quote is now in it and sourced, so this is no longer an issue, but I thought you should be aware regarding any future hook edits: any changes need to be reflected in the article and sourced there to be eligible for inclusion in the hook. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks. It had actually occurred to me, because I had to read the cited article to ensure that our article was true to the source and that I did not introduce any errors or ambiguities into the blurb. When doing so, I jumped the middle part of the chain. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Script-assisted change to format of date in title parameter of citeweb template

Hello. Please see where I fixed it. Perhaps the script was confused by the date concerned being within a {{ nowrap}} template? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 09:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Awesome script is awesome

I am so.... so... so... excited! The script does a lot of the tedious fixes and does them all at once! Combined with the rest of the general fixes I can make a lot of really important and MOS compliant changes without making multiple passes or bogging myself down with one thing at a time mentality. I like it a lot. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Glad you like it, Chris!
Suggestion #1 - [[Dutch language|Dutch]] to Dutch? Your thoughts? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Glad you like it, Chris! Unlinking "English language", sure, almost 100% of the time. Other widely known languages, where going to the article isn't much use, yes; but it requires a flick through of the diff before saving, just to check that unlinking isn't a problem. OC can advise about your specific example. Tony (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes; I found an issue with Ayn Rand which I just rolled back because it screwed with Night of January 16th and I didn't bother messing the rest of it up either. I doubt it needs a check for date in interlinks like this; they are sufficiently rare, but I was testing it. I also am maunally removing [[Italian language|Italian]] in cases of a list of languages students can learn at school for conformity and the obvious intention. [1] Seems like a large abuse of the national tags exist; but I am loving the county feature for United States towns. [2] That helps address the proper flow and maximize clarity of the subject and makes it appear better. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I agree that the protections may need to be strengthened. The AWB scripts got a bit neglected as I was concentrating my efforts on improving the monobook/vector scripts. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Major concern - It seems to be removing the DMY template, but shouldn't it be updating the last pass or is that needlessly redundant given MOS compliance? The category for it, [3] states that it is not a clean up category. Hence my confusion; I'm just going to be undoing the removals of it by hand for now. Since it seems MOS has progressed since its introduction, but I am not 100% certain of removal being valid right now. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The dmy template is deliberately removed by the script to facilitate its updating. You need to click on the 'more' tab, enable the append/prepend function, choose the prepend radio buttonm and then add "{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2013}}" to the box. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Minor suggestion? Doesn't DMY apply to access fields, but it does not seem supported. When I go through it will miss accessdate=2008-03-03, but it will update the rest in the template. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I've stopped using it for right now because DMY is not friendly to MDY for America; and the script doesn't seem able to flip all to a single preferred type. Any ideas on this? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Other than it not changing accessdates, can you explain what you mean by "doesn't seem able to flip all to a single preferred type"? --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I am aware that AWB has its own protection, and won't allow you to change stuff within for example blockquotes. So that would mean any citation templates caught inside such blockquotes would not be changed. Also, the script shouldn't go changing date formats inside filenames (very very common) and titles inside citation templates (quite common), so not changing those is not considered a problem. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It's unfortunate that you chose a bunch of South Dakota articles to work the module on. I know working on dates involves a tradeoff because these are not changes you can make to any/every article. That's why I said to you on your talk that it would involve more careful selection of articles to work on, such as working through national categories or Category:Use dmy dates. Although I still work mainly with dmy, it's a flexibility that the monobook/vector script gives me over the AWB modules. If you want, I can also create a mdy version, but you will have to give me a few days. In the meantime, you could try using User:Lightmouse/AWB/scripts/all_dates_to_mdy. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks; I'll try and pick better cases from now on; or at least until Wikipedia gets a format style solidified. In an ideal world I'd like for an option on AWB that gives "Convert to American MDY" and "Convert to DMY" as an optional pop-up that parses the number of citations of each type. Its a complex problem of which I do not know how to implement; but this would be closer to an ideal. Even better would be a stored summary of the rational in the edit summary or appended to a change list if anyone questions the edit. I rolled back my own actions for those places because I didn't want to leave the issues floating about, but yes I'd greatly appreciate a MDY for American workspaces. If you make such a module I can run the MDY and DMY modules on two separate instances of AWB through a list and alternate with a skip/save system. I've done this before with assessments because the kingbot plugin didn't work. Anyways... I'll busy myself with the DBZ matter and add more of my research to my sandbox. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 19:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I've begun working on them again... I am irritated with the other issue so I think I will run through the backlog. I've been using the high-light errors option to address the bracket backlog at the same time. Its rather sad to see so many examples of unclosed brackets in the middle of content... template clean up ones are better though. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I meant the DBZ mess; not bracket issues. Even so; when going through an updating the templates as I pass through; I might as well get every error I can in the process. If you do the American variant of this I wonder how I could target all pages without the dmy tag.. probably some find and skip function in AWB... Anyways; this is cool and it serves a valid purpose. I like it; and yes; the American town issue is a big like because even if its only on military articles for this pass, it catches a good amount of them. I do hope you make the mdy variant. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
OIC. I usually work from the dmy perspective, and skip the mdy ones, so if you work mainly on US subjects, our approaches will be more or less complementary. Now I'll get started on the mdy module. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Putain, Quelle drame chez toi! --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Just thought I'd mention that you should skip edits that merely change the template date as you could be pulled up for making inconsequential edits again. Another thing to pay attention to is the {{reflist|2}} or {{reflist|30em}} parameter. If there are fewer that say 4 references, it could cause weird ejects in the refs section. Best disable that line like I've done here. Cheers, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Okay, on the second point, but not the first. The whole point of updating the template is in the documentation to refer that it has been checked for DMY compliance and give a berth for other activities. The templates are almost three years old. If anything that rational and the intended purpose serves as a pretty good argument for maintaining the integrity and consistency of Wikipedia. If I do not update them any editor who follows in my footsteps or checks the last update will be given inaccurate information which wastes valuable contributor time and prevents a seemingly unaddressed backlog on for that category. Seems to be the technically best and intended option; don't you think? A bot cannot be allowed to do this task; it must be done by hand; so I believe it won't be a problem even in that instance because it has a good reason to be done and the majority do have fixes required. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply

It is also the only template which makes sense to do so; but I caught wind of some mass clean out of old POV tags that were never discussed by another AWB user... some from 2008-2009 when have remained on the page for so long. Tags are great for certain things and other times are a bit off putting. Wikipedia's maintenance requires that someone do the task, but doing so seems to upset the curators of their domains. We are here to build an encyclopedia and such janitorial tasks must be done alongside content ones. I'm not suggesting doing this for any other tag; but yes... my logic must be the same as yours. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks and done. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply

How is it coming along? I've been working hard at the backlog and so far so good; lots of changes to be made along the way. I've been going fairly slow and noticing a few issues with the script and the cases of "the (date)" when it is valid. Other than that.. not too many issues with it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply

'the [date]' can be a nuisance. I usually rephrase those, to remove its occurrence away from the date string so the script can't attack them when it passes through in future. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply

If you build out the American variant of the script; do you think I should begin inserting templates for future use in other articles not tagged yet? I am still addressing the backlog; and working on the bracket issue in the process with general fixes... do you notice it or no? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • It's not a problem to insert tags now, but it's much more efficient to do it all in one go. And there's no risk then of making inconsequential edits. I occasionally look at your contributions history, but don't notice the brackets – not something that interests me in the slightest... I'm re-acquainting myself with the AWB code to create a mdy version. I'll let you know when it's ready. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm avoiding the untagged ones so I don't upset anyone with it, but fair assessment. I notice a lot of broken brackets from past editors, not the script. Thanks for working on it for me; you'll like the results. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
It gives an error. Sorry, but I have no idea how to fix it. I copy and pasted it in and the error was with line 394. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't have AWB now, but need you to help me. I'm going to comment out the code line by line to see what's causing the problem. Can you try loading it again now, please? --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Compiled and loaded... testing... ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Seems good! It is making the proper changes and all. Not sure what was the issue. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
It was an html comment I left in there. The compiler regarded it as foreign but didn't ignore it, causing the failure to load. That's also why my it didn't fail in my test script, which ignored it. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Just a customary reminder to check the edits carefully, particularly the complex strings and the possible displaced commas. And let me know where they need patches. Sometimes, it's more helpful for me for you to save a bad edit to demonstrate the error and correct it in a subsequent save. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Okay... if I see a weird one that catches me; some are just easy to remove quickly without fretting about them. Though I wonder if another script could implement mph-km/hr conversions into articles that have them and format each one properly. I see the issue all over Wikipedia because weights and lengths and other measurements are in one style, when they should be templated for maximum accessibility. Template:Convert might be nearly impossible to implement in a AWB script though. Even as a separate script; I wonder if it is likely to gain support for wider use in articles. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I could try implementing any specific ideas you may have on that. Lightmouse was the editor who wanted to concentrate on units of measurement, but he met with some obstacles – some personal, sole operational – on the way, and he eventually gave up on WP. There are elements of his handywork still left in my scripts. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Then we will have to address that issue. If anything it should be targeted. But I'll ask a simpler one instead. Is there a way to parse regional affiliations for dmy and mdy tagging of content space that would hit all the relevant pages in a single shot. I was thinking the July dump would be a good thing to test it on... in a week or two. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I could essentially one-man such an operation over the course of a month or two, but it would require making a single edit to add just the template or else the pace would be extremely slow and likely require additional passes by AWB anyways. I've done huge projects before, but this one is bigger and more sensitive then I have ever worked on. I'd like to prepare it for August-October with around 30% completeness expected by that time. Granted it would be hundreds of thousands of edits... I've had the endurance and desire to bring completion to even immense projects like TypoScan's first run. [4] Even as a late entry into it; the results alone speak for themselves. Given the opportunity and the backing my endurance and patience can make good things happen. Of course; your script provides the tool and backing that such efforts would not be in vain. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

break 1

Yes; to tag the articles prior to a run, by placing just the template and then after all the templates are added begin addressing the issue with the script. Something that would take a very long time, sadly. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 12:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Had a revert of the changes at 9/11 Truth movement, I don't think it is a major issue since MOS allows the format, but should I make a list of pages that don't want these changes for future use? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Um, it's occupational hazard, I'm afraid. You'll find that won't be the first editor to do that. It accounts for why I had disabled the accessdate change – to stop being harassed by a small number of editors who jealously guard their precious yyyy-mm-dd access dates. I therefore stay away from US entertainment celebrity articles for that reason. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
People consistently screw those up in articles though and that's why the ambiguous date tags goes nuts at times. They are a real annoyance to clean up and it gets worse when any unknowing editor makes one error and before long the entirety is backwards or intermixed to the point that it is extremely difficult to fix it. Such changes seem to be doing the greater Wikipedia readers a favor; but that's my stance. I haven't had much kick back and have been thanked for this menial work. Is there an easy way to rule out pages that have DMY or MDY tags for future runs? I am sure I could default to adding them to articles in en masse if we end up having to start a RFC on dates or something... but that's a back up to a back up for me. Such good work can be stalled by a single objector... and I try not to make waves. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 00:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Truth is, the vast majority of editors simply don't care about date formats, which explains why there is such a mess. Everyone works in their own little corner, some inserting dmy dates as default along with an infobox, some placing mdy dates strictly in reference sections and not correcting anywhere else,or others adding tables with one date format or another in complete disregard for the prevailing format style. Nobody was fixing until I started aligning dates, because it's very fastidious doing it without any automation. I'm especially pleased with Notifications because scarcely a week goes by without someone thanking me for the date alignment.

Is there an easy way to rule out pages that have DMY or MDY tags for future runs?" Not quite sure what you mean. But there's a 'skip option' tab in AWB. Put in the regex \{\{use (dmy|mdy) dates into the skip box, tick "regex", and it should skip or filter any articles that have content matching or not matching the regular expression. If you want to target or exclude articles of any given month or year, like the ones you may have recently tagged, you only need to tweak the regex (e.g.\{\{use (dmy|mdy) dates\|date=June 2013\}\}) --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks I understand that now, and yes... my intention is to figure out a way to tag articles systematically and avoid re-duplicating the templates in the process. Then using continued improvements to your scripts, update them every once in awhile. Seems the script also doesn't catch all the abbreviation of dates in the article, where they should not be shortened. Or is there a problem with implementing that? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • As I attempted to explain earlier with article choice, the date format to use follows WP:TIES. I have been pondering the issue for a long time but have so far found no easy way of systematising the tagging for the entire WP library. But to summarise the general disposition, the only major English-speaking nations to use predominantly mdy are the USA and Canada. All other English-speaking countries' articles – as well as US military and the EU – can be put to dmy without any objection. Anecdotally, Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Philippine and Israeli articles are more frequently (typically somewhere between 75 and 95 percent of the time) found with mdy formats than dmy. I usually align articles relating to Commonwealth countries to dmy without problem. Articles of all other countries are free for all. As most other languages (other than noted) use dmy natively, WP articles tend to also be dmy although there's no hard-and-fast rule. You may also try using Date format by country as a guide. Some categories (American exception aside), such as rugby, cricket, and most forms of football also lend themselves to systematic alignment to dmy; ice hockey tends to be mdy. But the more international the editorship, the more likely for dmy to be used

    1exec1 ( talk · contribs), who helped my rewrite my js script, has another approach: he analyses the incidence of dmy or mdy dates using the database scan, and then applies the dominant date format per WP:RETAIN. That process allows him to run theough hundreds of articles at a time with maximal efficiency without even needing to stop and ponder whether it follows WP:TIES.

    My js script will usually expand month names, but only inside |date=, |accessdate= and |archivedate= within references. It hasn't been done so far because of the risks of false positives and script bugs (and because I had forgotten about my AWB scripts until I offered them to you). I suppose can make it expand others too – certainly for 'full' dates. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • I've made thousands of edits already with it, and the ideas keep coming. One of the issues I noticed was that the script modifies intrawiki links even if doing so creates a red link. [5] I created the page a minute later. [6] But have had this happen twice in the last 250 edits. I'm careful when using the script, but this seems to be a case of the actual article's title being incorrect... Doesn't seem to happen too often; but I don't want to accidentally break half a page in the process. And for that script thing... yes that's what I'd like; to add the dmy or mdy based on dominant. That'd be much easier for me! ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I'd say the title was wrong, and perhaps needs to be moved; the redirect is the right first step.

    Processing date tagging based on dominant format is definitely the most efficient. I don't know how it was done, and unfortunately 1exec1 is not that active any more. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • We have time; I'd ask and hope for the best... but I think I have a way to tag them on my own; just nothing that advanced seems to be runnable in AWB unless the entire script was converted for it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I think the script needs to stop altering interwiki links with hyphens and changes to "On" and other tweaks. I don't know if you can code it up quickly; but I am beginning to worry that I might have broken some links if I missed them. Its not frequent... but its becoming a concern for me. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There doesn't seem to be a way of specifically avoiding wikilinks. I've now disabled the downcasing of 'On', as I do agree that it is the case that most often causes problems despite me having inserted code in to reinstate specific, identified situations. Downcasing "Of The" and "In The" has never caused problems for me, even in links, because titles in WP invariably get changed and I've been comforted to find that out when checking the changes. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Again the issue of assess date and such... sorry, but I think it should be disabled until something is done about it, I don't want to get involved in a dispute. The unnatural and confusing system for many readers is not backed by consensus yet. I'll do MDY and DMY tagging instead okay? At least until you can tinker with the script. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 00:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
    •  Done Most people won't object, and some positively love their removal. I was going to suggest that you continued until someone objects, because complaints won't necessarily happen if you stay away from US entertainment celebrities' articles. In any case, I've amended both pieces of the code so that yyyymmdd accessdates are left but it will still convert those that are downright wrong of not consistent with the prevailing style. You can use the 'before' of 'after' versions as you see fit. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I did get a bit of a complaint about it; so until the matter is decided, I rather not paint a target on myself. I'm going to do many many many changes; the last thing I need to do is make controversial ones en masse. Thanks for making the fixes. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing to it. I also bet that the complaints are nothing like as intense as the hiding you received for "inconsequential edits" ;-) But then again, I have had some really nasty complaints some months ago about accessdates. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

regarding this, it is likely the insertion is related to your prepending the dmy/mdy templates. Go to the 'more' tab in AWB, and you can select the number of lines to insert after the template (make sure it's on "0"). --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Its on 1, before it was 2. 1 doesn't cause breaks, but 2 certainly does. Also, could you pop in at User_talk:Walter_Görlitz#Ummm? The two of you are more familiar with this then I. Walter is saying that updating the template is wrong; I've linked the documentation, and is asserting that DATERET is the reason why. The intention has been clear in the documentation for years; and it makes sense. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Break 2

So I asked and figured out how to tag all the articles relatively easily with dmy or mdy and practiced on some of them. Ideally, every page should be tagged - even preemptively for the citation style, correct? I cannot leave this up to some bot or script; I'll have to do every one by hand and rationalize the decision where it is not immediately obvious. I've also done a few thousand more pages on the backlog and addressed a lot of issues, with only a few errors that I have to manually address every dozen or two pages. If I keep up this pace, the backlog will be addressed by the end of July and I can begin working on the major untagged elements. I just need to find what to do and how best to execute it with a guideline I can follow; I've been going by TIES and existing formats and defaulting to scope and region for DMY or MDY in my test run. I think I need a concrete form to go by though. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 20:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I see that some of Chris's edits aren't converting the YYYY-MM-DD dates in the |accessdate= parameters. For example, check out the edit history for Baby, You're a Rich Man and TRS-80 to see Chris's edits using the AWB module and my edit immediately after using the script. Is this a bug or by design? Thanks!
Batty, they are specifically omitted because I got push back from Masem for this edit. [7] So removing the accessdate changes was the best option, but the plain date field should still be changed. The script actually will address YYYY/XX/XX format ones though; as they are not acceptable - if ambiguous the script will skip other cases as well. I'm not out to make a fuss or enemies; so because access and archive date are allowed to be YYYY-MM-DD the script will not touch them. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • To be fair, I think most Wikipedia users do not understand what DATERET is and they use it like WP:OTHERSTUFF even when it doesn't apply for fairly obvious reasons. With four variants on the citation style at one page the editor is claiming it is I who is changing the date format. For example: "Retrieved 2011-06-07." and "Retrieved August 24, 2010." over at Microsoft Expression Web. Somehow my changing of the ISO to MDY has an issue with DATERET. While I don't like pointing out the error; it was not a mistake. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Chris, you have been working through the backlog at an impressive rate. You started on the assumption that all dates were either dmy or mdy. You know, the real problem, as was pointed out to me at WT:MOSNUM, is that the {{ use dmy dates}} tagging did not account for multiple date formats in use on a single page. So now we have a piece of string upon which we must both push and pull. Had the tagging been {{use dmy dates|dmy|ymd}} or somesuch (to include the possibility that |date= and |accessdate= could be different), semi-automated alignment could take place uniformly and without guessing or second-guessing. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm kinda confused, because I believe ISO is acceptable for access/archive dates, just as it is outlined at MOSDATE, but I still believe a single format for all other aspects. MDY and DMY should not be on the same page unless it is one of the rare exceptions. MDY variations like Mar 10 and March 10 should not be allowed to co-exist either. The ISO variants for access/archival do not bug me in the slightest, it is not a battle I want to wage. If I am doing something wrong, please let me know. Oh and if you are suggesting an alternate form or change to the template before I do mass tagging; definitely let me in on it. I have everything ready to go on my end. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • One of the primary drivers in MOS is consistency. Having MDY and DMY on the same page violates that, except when we refer to articles or works that have the other format. I agree that MDY variations like Mar 10 and March 10 should not be allowed to co-exist either. The AWB script currently doesn't make that change although my js script will change these. Let me update the code to expand those abbreviated forms. As to changing the tagging, I actually think it's a good idea going forwards. People will be confused, though, unless the change has been broadly thrashed out. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Okay. So what should I do? Continue to update the backlog for MDY and DMY to be useful fixing the issues? Should I tag a bunch of all articles as DMY or MDY? Should we just leave the ISO issue as a side matter for later while other issues are fixed in the mean time? Out of how many thousands of edits, only a few concerns have popped up. The only meaningful ones are the ISO ones. Though yes; one format per page... with specific exceptions, is my ideal. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'd suggest you carry on as you were. This is a never-ending project until it can be fully automated. Any changes to the {{use}} tagging system can come in later. As I said, the vast majority of editors don't much care so long as dates are consistent. The "concerns" come from a very small number and are not always soundly justified; those that are justified can usually be accommodated somehow with some minor adaptation or workaround. As in any democratic/consensual system, there will always be sticks in the mud. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, okay. I don't want my numerous changes to be used to strong-arm a consensus or anything. And true; I'm up for working with any editor who takes issue with the changes; however many have been from indifferent to rude. Same as anywhere else on the project. Unlike your assertion; I doubt that bot operation will ever be completely automated for the reason that typo fixing cannot be automated. A single false positive can screw things up, but a thousand or ten thousand of them will be worse, especially with blind enforcement. Unlike with typos; a bot error rate would be thousand or more times worse. At my pace; its not hard either. So I will update my AWB and continue on. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Okay, will this apply to the rest of the article as well? The short form seems okay per MOSDATE, but not two variations of either type. In fact, the more I look at MOSDATE the more it seems that some horrible compromise was drawn because it links to the citation which seems only to detail the ISO issue, but not the conciseness aspect. I really don't see why ISO is even allowed as a third aspect because DMY or MDY are the "everywhere" form and we are to use only one format. Doesn't it seem to be odd that DMY and ISO can co-exist, but not MDY and DMY? Even more so that ISO is not "everywhere", making it an awkward choice to use one format in the article and another in the referencing... commonly both formats in the same citation. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It is definitely a horrible compromise. You may be aware of the WP:ENGVAR rule, which is an equally horrible compromise. These are the sorts of things bred by committees. The system is creaking under the weight of legacy of consensual compromise, as witnessed by the escalation of both number and intensity of conflicts. Oh how I wish that there would be some revolution, and the monarchy restored ;-), then we might have some decisive rules for a change.

    And no, I have to be tight on the scope so the script will not expand abbreviated month names elsewhere. When I wrote an earlier version of my js script, I couldn't find a way of ensuring no false positives for things like works and titles. That problem still exists for me with AWB. I may be fine writing regexes, but my non-existence programming skills means I won't be able to make such improvements without assistance from a programmer. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Ah... I think I am beginning to see why Wikipedia is in the state that it currently is in. Many conflicts seem to be waged over trivial issues and a few people are intent on carrying them on as much and as long as possible. Some of the eng var issues are a given; but Wikipedia has a terrible system for dealing with it. Personally, given the reading of MOS, ISO seems to be the odd one that is encroaching only because of the template citations. They cause considerable confusion and are very easy to screw ups in other sections and formats. It got most of this for instance, but I needed to finish the rest by hand. [8] The ISO issue, if swapped, would ruin the flow for the access and archives. I've seen them abused before because AWB throws an alert to notify me and they are not fixable without caution or research. Anyways... keep up the good work! I'll keep plugging along. I got about 4000 done today, but I'll do a bunch more before I do something else. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The yyyy-mm-dd dates is only really a problem for references as they became somewhat entrenched with the now abandoned 'Date Autoformatting'. Now some people (usually nerds who actually like and are more comfortable with this format) are refusing to accept the evolution of the WP utilitarian reality and readers' need to see and parse dates. We can only make a sow's purse out of the proverbial pig's ear. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I tried to write the AWB code to minimise errors. Where there are pervasive use of slash dates on a page, like Ivor Broadis, these are better handled by script. I have a button that flips them all, not just the unambiguous ones. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I wonder how many of those yyyy-mm-dd dates defaulted in from Reflinks instead of a decision by a human editor to have the dates formatted that way. GoingBatty ( talk) 17:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Too many, but to the yyyy-mm-dd-lover, it doesn't matter. It's anecdotal justification that some editor deliberately placed those dates, thus marking the 'first major contributor' rule. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter ( talk) 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Tank Man meets Rubber Duck

Thanks for uploading the picture to english wiki, can you please also upload it to wiki commons?

BTW, those "contributors" of Chinese wiki they are always removing contents about tank man, the tank man vs rubber duck picture will become a powerful weapon by posting it in Chinese wiki, though I think they will undo my edit.

Anyway thank you for your contribution, have a nice day. 116.49.203.248 ( talk) 03:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Unless it can be established that it is GFDL (public domain) image, commons will delete it. Irrespective of that, I am boycotting Commons because I totally disagree with the way in which they delete files. Your best bet would be to upload the file directly to Chinese Wiki on the same " fair use" grounds. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Wang Lijun and Snowden

About this edit, do you know what the article title is? I may locate it on the SCMP website. WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Tightened?

This edit escaped me. Now we have on the Main page a hook with a grammatical error, not naming the birthday child, saying "today", carefully avoided by the reviewer. I hope not for long, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Suggestion for AWB modules

Hi Ohconfucius! Saw the links to the AWB modules for date formatting - I'll have to try them out sometime. I noticed that there is some code in the modules that seems to duplicate AWB functionality. For example, your module changes {{ bda}} to {{ birth date and age}}, which is also part of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. While those changes are great to be used in non-AWB scripts, you may want to remove them from the AWB modules to get a little better performance. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

The Telegraph (Calcutta)

This is not a very serious issue and thus does not need reversion, but, can you add a rule that the newspaper's name is The Telegraph (Calcutta), here Calcutta is not location. -- Tito☸ Dutta 07:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:IMOS

WP:IMOS and WP:IRE-IRL are being ignored by your bot creating inconsistancies. Please rectify. Murry1975 ( talk) 10:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Sorry, you'll have to do better than leaving cryptic messages on my talk page. Anyway, attempting to understand/address your issue, when I come across 'Ireland' link that is piped to 'Republic of Ireland', I simply remove the link and replace with 'Republic of Ireland'. WP:IRE-IRL is mainly about making the distinction between the country and the island, and I don't believe that my changes breach WP:IRE-IRL in any way as that's the underlying target the author intended to relate to. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral.js

Here is my code review.

  1. The first rule with the months looks complicated and very specific. I guess it to remove useless links from dates?
  2. {0,1} is the same as ?.
  3. There are lots of [ ] in your code. They can all be replaced with a simple space.
  4. "rem empty parameters": I have a rule in my script to remove empty unnamed parameters from infobox templates.
  5. I'm surprised how many rules are specific for the English language. All the upper/lower case rules. Wow.
  6. I found it a good idea to always use [^\{\}] (or simply [^{}] which is the same) instead of [^\}]. This avoids false positives with nested templates.
  7. In the "remove scroll bar for reflists" rule the part [\S\s]* should be [\S\s]*?. Also you can remove the (?:) from this rule.
  8. "replace various single quotes and prime symbol with straight apostrophe": No typographic quotes? Really? This is strange. They have so many advantages. The disadvantages described in the MOS are minor. I have to change my script then. To bad.
  9. Your "replace various single quotes" rule is duplicated.
  10. I'm afraid of removing all spaces in front of every <ref>. Your script does it. Should I too?
  11. I like your rule to remove duplicate spaces: /([\w;,.\])>] ) +([[\w(])/g (I made it a little bit shorter). I should keep this in mind.
  12. No space in 1%? Another one I have to change in my script.
  13. What if my script continues to replace "1$" with "1 $"? This is both wrong in English, right?
  14. Shouldn't the "wiktionary" rule place a [[wikt:]] link?
  15. Your "copyright" rule simply removes all copyright symbols, even from the article copyright symbol. ;-)
  16. It's good to know that an \dx\d rule (without spaces) produces lots and lots of false positives.
  17. Your two "turn letter 'x' into symbol" rules can be merged with the /(\d) x (\d )/ rule above.
  18. The "Celsius" and some other rules can be merged. Oh, and it seems you missed a \. Here is a suggestion: /(\d)(?:\s|&nbsp;)?(?=\[\[Celsius\|[°º]C\]\])/gi.
  19. Repeating the "remove leading zeros from convert template" rule three times is a bit strange. Make it /(\{\{convert\s*\|)\s*0+(?=[1-9])/gi, '$1'.
  20. "rem bolding from linked AND bolded terms": Isn't this valid sometimes? If not, why not remove the link and keep the bolding?

-- TMg 21:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for you thorough evaluation. Comments or responses as below:

  1. The first rule is indeed to remove useless piped links from dates to sections within year articles.
  2. Agreed and now amended.
  3. It makes some spaces easier to see. Also, I seem to remember that putting a space immediately after the opening / (slash symbol) created a code error for me. But I've now replaced it and I'll see how it goes.
  4. "rem empty parameters": will change description accordingly
  5. Yes, we generally use sentence case, and we downcase prepositions of five letters or fewer, per MOS:CT.
  6. Agreed and now amended.
  7. "remove scroll bar for reflists" rule. Agreed and now amended. I've been wondering why the code doesn't catch all instances of scroll bars, just like it doesn't always find <references /> or {{ reflist}} and replace with {{reflist|30em}}
  8. "replace various single quotes and prime symbol with straight apostrophe": I actually quite like them too, as they are unambiguous, but MOS:QUOTE prefers straight quote marks, so it's what I do
  9. Your "replace various single quotes" rule is duplicated. [Holding response - couldn't find it on first look]
  10. removing all spaces in front of every <ref>. I've found no disadvantages, and in fact it adheres the citation more closely to the phrase to which it relates (or to another citation).
  11. rule to remove duplicate spaces: now amended
  12. No space in 1% per WP:PERCENT
  13. replace "1$" with "1 $"? We put currency symbols immediately before the numeral. On the other hand, we seem to allow "200 HKD" as well as the "HK$200"
  14. "wiktionary" rule. It's just simpler to remove them outright. They are usually put in to supply glosses that I find unnecessary most of the time.
  15. "copyright" rule. There are only a handful of articles dealing with copyrights, but lots of straight copying of the publisher with symbol into citations, making the false positive rate acceptable.
  16. YEs, \dx\d rule (without spaces) produces never-ending of false positives, particularly in sport (athletics) articles, and often disturbs links.
  17. Your two "turn letter 'x' into symbol" rules. I encounter too many errors that I will drop that line.
  18. The "Celsius" and some other rules can be merged. Agreed and now amended.
  19. "remove leading zeros from convert template" rule. Agreed yours is better. Now amended.
  20. "rem bolding from linked AND bolded terms": The rule has been disabled because it's impossible to do a hard-and-fast determination of which should be removed.

Thanks again for your help and advice. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  1. "I seem to remember that putting a space immediately after the opening / (slash symbol) created a code error for me." I can't think of a reason why this should happen. Spaces need to be escaped as \  when you use the /x modifier. But this is not supported in JavaScript. OK, thanks
  2. "will change description accordingly". This was meant as a hint that you can look at my code (look for "cleanTemplatesByRules"). Gotcha
  4. "I encounter too many errors that I will drop that line." Which one? All "×" rules? – yes, that's the one
  5. Please note that I missed to escape the &nbsp; above. Noted
  7. "The rule has been disabled". I don't see a change. Are you editing a local copy? Yes. Explanation below

-- TMg 12:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I first make changes to my test script, then transfer to production when I'm satisfied that I've mastered the risk of bugs, and false positives. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I do the same. Oh, deployment cycles. I love and hate you the same time. I changed so much in the past weeks (rewrote my language and keyword localization support, added a new set of rules to get rid of deprecated HTML), it wouldn't be possible to do this without a beta test. And without my collection of nearly 500 test cases. Thanks a lot too for helping me reducing false positives. PS: By the way, you could update all your documentations to link to Special:MyPage/common.js for all skins. -- TMg 16:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Per MOSNUM, currency signs come before the value and are unspaced. The biggest problem we have is Europeans who import articles into en.WP without translating this formatting for euros. I see, all over the place, horrors like 30 €. It's as bad as the swapping of the comma–period functions in number format (35,4% and 1.020.556). Sends English-speakers into a spin. Tony (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Your "Sources" script

Hello, Thanks for your message on my talk page about your "Sources" script. I discover that I already have it in my vector.js page, but it doesn't work. Maybe this is because I am using Chrome browser. I switched from Firefox a while ago. Is there any chance your script will soon work in Chrome as well? Thanks -- Alarics ( talk) 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) Hello Alarics. I have tried 3 of his scripts and all of them work on Chrome. I have no problem using them in Chrome. There may be a technical issue there with your gadget. Fai zan 12:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I seem to recall there may have been a problem with Windows Vista/IE, but I'm not aware of problems with Chrome. It might be an incompatibility. I suggest that you tried purging your vector and load the scripts one by one. I also note that you are still using the Lightmouse script. I've further developed it and it is now much more powerful and with more sophisticated protection. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Thought I'd also mention that the MW techies have been fiddling with the software today, and all my scripts have been affected. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Continued awesomeness

Made a new section for easy replying. A script to flip them all is indeed nice, but a bit too late for that page. Haha. At what point do you think the updating of the articles is appropriate to stop parsing them? Six months prior or just do them all to July 2013 so that all pages have a shot at the other fixes in the script? Estimated time to completion would be September/October; if I go all out on it without interruption... end of August at latest. Personally, I'd stop after all the May ones are done and begin tagging all articles with dmy/mdy tags while the ISO issue can be debated to death. What do you think is good? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Truth be told, I've been targeting articles not yet tagged, and my throughput is between 150–300 articles a day. I'm not hugely obsessed with the backlog, but it's great that you've been ploughing through it so efficiently. Your progress and the projection are awesome. If you do all those tagged from August 2010 to December 2010, you will have processed 40,000 articles, which will be terrific. If you do all those tagged from August 2010 to December 2011, you will have processed 120,000 articles – half the backlog, which I think is really quite satisfactory. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redrose took the updating the template matter to AWB talk as violation of rule 4. Here. I previously explained to the editor the purpose and how I am trying to prevent "only" those changes, but they are unavoidable at times. Anyways; even half the back log is a lot to do. So we will see. Perhaps more fixes can be found and added later for a second pass after all dmy and mdy are tagged. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 12:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Another issue with "linking dates" on my talk page. Unless I am gravely mistaken my argument for the removal is appropriate under MOS. Could you comment on it? Arthur Rubin undid over 100 of the edits and seems to be defending a walled garden approach that goes against MOS and two of the three examples on WP:YEARLINK and WP:DATELINK. It seems all of the individual year articles have this major problem, but January and 1940s through 1970s do not. I pointed out an example of such problems to him, but I could use your expert opinion on the matter. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I wasn't aware there were any date articles among the backlog. Yes, Arthur Rubin. You're right about walled garden, because that's truly what the ring-fencing amounts to. Oh how I wish I could spray abundantly with Roundup! I have never been impressed with his arguments nor he with ours. And there was no real consensus to unlink dates in "chronological articles" as a consequence of the big hooha at WT several years back, so I generally leave the weeds to grow there. Because we're working transversally in the project and touching about thousands of articles, it's common to find these little empires around WP. Most of them cause no problem vis à vis date formats or unlinking. Occasionally we also see the occasional skirmish at the fringes ('Year in Xxx' articles) with an editor called Deb, and Always Learning constantly reverting some changes I make to football player articles. But there's now't to do, I'm afraid. Occupational hazard, again. Maybe one day, the weeds will be so bad that Roundup will be useless, and napalm may be needed. Until then... --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Discussion is still important, I don't know the problem history that well, but I was keeping the MOS in mind when I saved the edits. Rubin has been nice and considerate; the last issue I had was with that editor who didn't understand the changes and mocked me. I am confident we can get a resolution to the problem. I don't want to start a wiki-war. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Could I ask you only watch Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#MOS because its really my only offer. If it is declined, I will drop the MOS compliance issue from years and avoid those articles for the time being. If getting a handful of GAs is required to impose compliance and lead by example; I'll gladly throw 40-80 hours worth of research and work into it. This will mean a great slowing of the backlog... but you seem to be also itching to have this problem done, but your tone and history suggests that such an offer has never been brought up as a negotiation. I've never done a GA or FA, but if that is an acceptable compromise - I'll do it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Although the rather senseless linking of dates and years bugs me no end, what we have is already much much better than any of the other language wikipedias. The walled garden isn't going away any time soon. There has never been any consensus to remove date or year links therefrom. I usually stay away from 'chronological articles', although I sometimes inadvertently end up editing at one or another such article and press save. They might get reverted but I never deliberately monitor them to find out the fate. I'd say it's not worth the effort to do any sort of work at those articles, as it usually is not appreciated or you can get summarily reverted. The only issue is scope – which articles does this 'exemption' specifically apply to. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • And the scope allows only those which are relevant and key; i.e. the preceding and successive years, decades, centuries and millennial articles. There is strong reasoning to suggest that linking that which is prohibited on the biography (date+year for birth and death) is not intrinsic in any form to the function of the article. People also don't go about reverting GA's because that would be disruptive and damaging to the encyclopedia on purpose. Even before it reaches that level such changes would be unequivocally affirmed as positive so that the reverter will be in a bad predicament. Besides... I need to start doing GAs and FAs anyways. Might as well have a bunch of non-pornographic ones to balance out the inevitable... ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • So you would like a separate MOS-compliance script? Quite a few style compliance issues – the low-hanging fruit, with low risk of false positives – are already incorporated in the current AWB script. If you want an even more comprehensive library of changes, I need to go through the MOS page by page, and think about how to add them all as regex rules. It could take some time. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It'd be rather ideal, and yes... A separate script which exists to correct punctuation, and CHECKWIKI type errors. I'm not sure, but a "dead link" fixer would by itself be the most valuable contribution I could come up with! A script to check the link against a host of pages - via resurrect. Something like this but with automated checks. [9] Even as a stand alone, I'd like to run a check in AWB for dead links, then on the individual article page find each marked "dead link" template and check that URL automatically in each of the cache and check the page for 404 errors of some sort. Bonus props would be for saving a copy of the cache in a folder on the computer of the script user as a html or something - so if it 404s again the person can remirror the resurrected page. Thoughts on that? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I may have told you so already, I'm fine with writing regex rules and occasionally adapting others' code, but otherwise my programming skills are non-existent. I don't have a clue how to do all that stuff on your wish list. Magio or Kumioko might be able to help more with that. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Date formats

Hello. I just wondered if you could do what you did to this article on Seb Brown ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Seb_Brown&diff=next&oldid=562335258)

On this article for Barry Fuller ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Fuller)

As the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jodie25 has changed all the dates in the article to the incorrect format, seen here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Barry_Fuller&diff=562411292&oldid=562410874)

If you have the time to do this, that would be great.

Many thanks. 92.40.254.19 ( talk) 17:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) -  Done. GoingBatty ( talk) 23:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Death year and age template

Hello. Was wondering why you/your script were adding a |df=yes parameter to uses of the {{ death year and age}} template, given that AFAIK this template neither has nor needs a |df= parameter? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 08:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alex Jackson (footballer born 1905), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Renton ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

London Evening Standard

Hello, I have got your script partially working now, and it is a great boon. Thanks for all your work on it. But there is one thing it is doing wrong -- converting "London Evening Standard" to "Evening Standard (London)". In fact the former is now correct, the masthead having read "London Evening Standard" since the paper was relaunched in 2009. See its website and the WP article on it. Best, -- Alarics ( talk) 18:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • What do you mean "partially working"? ;-) It was a dilemma I was facing when I wrote that rule, but it was to fulfil the need to be consistent with the WP article nomenclature. I will remove the disambiguation brackets. Everyone knows it as the London Evening Standard even before the relaunch, yet the WP article is located at Evening Standard ('London Evening Standard' is a redirect). --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

So maybe we should rename the WP article to London Evening Standard? Or would somebody get upset about that? -- Alarics ( talk) 04:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

"Sources" script

Hello again, When I click "Fix news sources" or "Rem publishers" in the toolbox at left, and nothing happens within a few seconds, does that mean that the article doesn't need any changes in those respects, or that the script isn't working in my browser, or that I need to wait longer before something happens? -- Alarics ( talk) 10:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • That function of the script is very fast as the repertoire of publishers is quite limited. So don't be surprised that it doesn't remove all publishers. The ones acted on are those related to periodicals that are most commonly seen in the US popular culture articles, such as The New York Times Company, Gannet, News International, Conde Nast, Filipachi, Time Inc. If there are any that you commonly see that are not removed, please let me know and I will consider adding them to the library. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Here are two that I have seen often enough:

  • publisher = Guardian News and Media Limited
  • publisher = Associated Newspapers Limited

-- Alarics ( talk) 09:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

MOSNUM dates.js + HTTPS

Hello. Please see User talk:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js#HTTPS. -- AVRS ( talk) 21:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Edward Snowden". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk 05:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peter Latchford may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 01-11: Celtic 1–1 Aberdeen, Premier Division |publisher=The Celtic Wiki |accessdate=6 July 2013}}{rs}}</ref><ref>http://www.fitbastats.com/celtic/player_games.php?playerid=562&page=2</ref> He finally

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 08:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, Ohconfucius. At this edit you removed some links in the Nigel Malim DYK hook and said "one was grossly misleading". I guess you had in mind "the French"? Of course, there were also the Free French, who until November 1942 were very few in numbers and impotent, while Vichy France was the government of France. So I really can't agree with "grossly misleading" for the period in question. I wouldn't wish to argue with the link " collaborationist French", but I wouldn't have said that myself, because the situation was incredibly complicated. I thought the other links in the hook I proposed were interesting and did no harm. Anyway, when you are making such changes to a hook, would you mind leaving the original one on the page and proposing an Alt? Regards, Moonraker ( talk) 10:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • @ Moonraker:. Thanks for the heads up. I see you made mine into an alternative. In fact, the one I thought was grossly misleading was '[[MAS (boat)|torpedoed]]'. It doesn't seem you had an issue with that one. I merely changed the French for what I thought was more precise from an "interesting" viewpoint. I'd still want to unlink 'torpedoed', though, as the link is not only misleading but entirely unnecessary. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the reply, Ohconfucius. An MAS boat in the Second World War was a motorboat armed with torpedoes, and the torpedoes referred to in the Nigel Malim article and hook came from two of them. According to this citation (relied on in the article) they were MAS 16 and MAS 22. So I don't follow the "grossly misleading" comment if it applies to that link? Moonraker ( talk) 14:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Sure the MAS was a torpedo boat, but it could be implied that the MAS is a type of torpedo, and you wouldn't know unless you clicked on or hovered over the link. You could say it was shot by torpedoes from a MAS boat, or simply that it was torpedoed. Either way, I feel that the link is surplus to requirements. You might surmise now that I absolutely detest this continual habit of making 4 accessory links to support [one] main DYK link. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Bahraini uprising (2011–present)

Hi, I had a few questions about this edit. I understand the idea of not linking to common terms and try not to do it myself but I'm not sure that [[Prime Minister of Bahrain|Prime Minister]] is that common a term. I noticed that you changed most or all occurrences of Al Jazeera English to Al Jazeera, mainly in references. Some were correctly changed but others were actually referenced to the Al Jazeera English website and Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera are two separate things. I was also curious why you would change direct links to redirects such as [[Shia Islam|Shia]] to [[Shia]] or [[Shotgun shell#Birdshot|birdshot]] to [[Birdshot]]. In most cases that's not a problem but you changed [[Torture during the Bahraini uprising (2011–present)|torture in government custody]] ( torture in government custody) to [[Torture during the Bahraini uprising (2011–)|torture in government custody]] ( torture in government custody) and {{ Bahraini uprising (2011–present)}} to {{ Bahraini uprising (2011–)}}. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 22:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for your query. The [[Prime Minister of Bahrain|Prime Minister]] [[Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa]] construction is a rather common "chain link" – two or more links that are adjacent to each other – that does the reader no favours at all. I try to simplify this by removing the former, which in any event is linked to from the latter article should the reader choose to divert there from the article being read. The links with section headings were replaced by Reflinks, and although the 'Shia' link was done by me, these all come under "redirects are cheap" argument.

    As I understand it, Al Jazeera English is a "station" and Al Jazeera is the umbrella news organisation. It may be arguable that AJ English is a more precise target, but using the generic 'Al Jazeera' as the publisher isn't incorrect. Quite clearly, it's not likely that we would cite Al Jazeera Arabic as a matter of course, so there is no ambiguity. When examining the links, you will find that they redirect back to www.aljazeera.com even though the cited ref might begin with english.aljazeera.com. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

    • Cambridge, long time no type ... I hope you're doing well. A few observations: the within-double-brackets change is clearly an auto-glitch. Like my own use of these (excellent and evolving) scripts, there are usually manual changes, even unlinkings, in an edit, too. Possibly "Prime Minister of Bahrain" was one ... It's a good link in terms of specificity (not just the dictionary term Prime minister; but on the downside the pipe conceals that specificity, and it's bunched; I think it's a matter of editorial judgement, since that target will almost certainly be linked at the start of Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa. No big deal. But I must say I'd usually unlink President of the United States, since I'd rather they clicked on the person's name and got there that way. On the hanging dash, I'm leaning towards a change to mere correction of "2001-present", 2001 – present", "2001–Present" to the correct "2001–present". But I'd much rather "Since 2001". Tony (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. I'd forgotten about the two consecutive links. One thing I have noticed recently is that more editors will make [[redirect]] to [[target|redirect]] edit as their only edit to the article. I will change the redirects to pipe them but only if I'm doing something else in the article as per the WP:Redirect guide. My concern was more with the blue links changing to red. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply
        • As Tony said, that was an unanticipated false positive from removing the "present" – I happen to agree with him that it's actually a bad formulation which is unfortunately ver prevalent, but the scrip has now been patched. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:38, 9 July 2013 (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.

Arthur Numan ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hamilton
Billy Hume ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Livingston
Tommy McLaren ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Livingston

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

More surveillance news

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2013 mass surveillance scandal#Expand title and scope in light of WaPo stories. I'm contacting you because of your substantial contributions to the articles related to Edward Snowden. Nstrauss ( talk) 20:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi

When you got the time please check out the refs on Marie Lehmann, Jenny Strömstedt , Jasmine Kara, Anna Herdenstam, Amelia Adamo and Elisabet Höglund. Much appreciated. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you!-- BabbaQ ( talk) 14:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Could you take a new look at Elisabet Höglund, I am not good at combining refs. And while you are at it please take a look at Kim Kärnfalk and Nina Inhammar. Much appreciated.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you again!.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply
When you got the time take a look at the refs for Disappearance of Andy Puglisi. Thank you.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I brought it to DRN

Some user I've never encountered before undid my MOS edit so I am bringing it to DRN. The definition of "intrinsic" is "essential" in this case. I am tired of this issue. This issue should be easy to resolve and help in showing consensus. If it is just Deb and me, nothing will change. If Deb refuses DRN, what do I do? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File permission problem with File:Roksan-xerxes-20-plus-contre-platine.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Roksan-xerxes-20-plus-contre-platine.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File permission problem with File:Xerxes20plus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Xerxes20plus.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • @ Sfan00 IMG: please go to the link concerned, click on the image gallery at the bottom of the page. When the respective images appear in pop-up windows, the mention "free licence" is clearly in the bottom right corner, so it seems pretty clear although "GFDL" isn't mentioned. However, I have actually emailed the contact address for clarification, but have not received a reply so far. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Quick issue

I screwed this one up. [10] I didn't catch this sadly; I even looked at it and hit okay. Is there a way to prevent me from hitting on this ever again? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 20:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Ugh! Not a huge cock-up. It probably explains why it's the only "&nbsp;" is there. I was probably the one to put it there months ago to protect such instances, before my script protected these date instances. I was not sure what AWB protected, but it's obvious now that it doesn't protect within quote marks embedded in refs. maybe GB might have a suggestion how to deal with these... --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply
You may want to see if using {{ cite news}} for that reference would help. Good luck! GoingBatty ( talk) 01:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Hmm. In this particular case the article doesn't use citation templates, so there seems little justification to put one there, per WP:CITE. But ideally there should be a script-specific mechanism where such instances in other articles are not converted. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Use dmy dates

Can you please explain this edit? There is nothing to retain, as a glance at the previous edit history would show. It is mindless cluttter. It is not helpful to building an encyclopedia. The article in question has no d's or m's to order carefullyl in one direction or the other. As far as I can see this is just a pissing contest to mark as many articles as possible, with no actual use. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • With all due respect to you excellent efforts in WP, you seem to fail to understand how the overall aims of what the project, and how they are to be achieved. The templates may appear to be clutter, but it's not "mindless clutter" as you state because they are there for a reason. As I explained on Dl2000's talk page, it's ultimately within the project's stated aim to ensure all WP articles have consistent dates. Templating is a necessary and inevitable part of that work by ensuring completeness of the effort, barring changes in the way we handle dates on WP. In any event, like many other articles, even though the article doesn't have any dates at present, it doesn't preclude that it will one day have dates. But there's no pleasing everyone. You may be please to know I won't be reverting you again. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Dates

Please switch the date format on The Dresden Dolls back to mdy. Thank you. Alexius Horatius 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, your change last February was incorrect, both per WP:RETAIN and per the fact that they are/were an Americam band. Please fix. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:AFCH integration of formatgeneral

Hi Ohconfucius,

I'm rethinking about integrating your script in AFCH, so that an article gets automatically cleaned up by your script after declining or accepting any submission. Is it possible, that you transform your script a bit so that I can put any string in your function and get the transformed text back? AUTOED is handling that way, see Wikipedia:AutoEd/templates.js for instance what I do mean. I believe many cleanup functions are already integrated in the full autoed "library", but that won't hurt. mabdul 13:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

IHH to İHH

I've started a debate on a requested move from IHH to İHH, since I think diacritics should be used the article name for this Turkish NGO in line with Wikipedia rules. The previous debate resulted in a draw, some people argued that İHH's English website used the name without diacritics, but other articles like Agnieszka Radwańska use diacritics contrary to spellings in their websites. I see Ana Ivanović's name has been changed, but I don't agree with it. Anyways, you're free to comment on /info/en/?search=Talk:IHH_(Turkish_NGO)#Requested_move_3 Kavas ( talk) 18:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive27&oldid=1144428709"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question regarding the independence of Template:EngvarB

Does the ENGVAR script recognize the "Use X English" templates as implying {{ EngvarB}}? That is to say, if I'm adding {{ Use South African English}} to an article which already has EngvarB, should I remove the EngvarB or just let it stand? - htonl ( talk) 09:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Unlinking

At Solidarity (South African trade union), you unlinked both "South Africa" and "trade union" in the lede. Why? -- Taejo| 대조 10:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

If I may answer despite not being Ohconfucius: I suspect it is because of the MoS on linking. I know South Africa is on the list of "major geographic features and locations" not to be linked, and I suppose "trade union" is considered an "everyday word understood by most users in context". I might suggest the whole phrase "South African trade union" could be linked to Trade unions in South Africa. - htonl ( talk) 10:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Thanks to both of you. -- Taejo| 대조 07:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Indeed: linking as specifically as possible really raises the quality of the system. Tony (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Date fixing script

Why are dates being changed in such edits as here? This does not seem to make much sense, is it what you really intended the script to do? Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 12:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

OK. Thanks for the reply. Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 06:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

BLPPROD

Hi! Thanks for your maintenance work around the project. I encourage you to take the time to re-read our policy on BLP PRODs, as it seems you believed Dana Schechter was eligible, although the policy states rather clearly that it requires that the article contain no sources in any form, which isn't the case here. :) · Salvidrim!·  ✉ 04:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

And in addition, BLPPRODs can only be used on articles created after March 18, 2010, which is another reason the article mentioned above isn't eligible. You are welcome to PROD it if you still believe its deletion to be uncontroversial. :) · Salvidrim!·  ✉ 04:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

EngvarB

AWB converts template codes from the redirect to the target title automatically — you may need to file a bug request at WP:AWB if it's doing so incorrectly in this instance, but I did not manually apply the change and have no way of being able to tell within AWB if it's correct or incorrect. Bearcat ( talk) 06:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi

When you got the time fix the refs on Pleasure (short film). Im no good at combining refs. Much appreciated.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC) reply

A late Thank you! :)-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply
A royal wedding coming up in Sweden this weekend could you take look at the refs of an article about that when you find the time Wedding of princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O’Neill. Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
When you got the time please check out the refs on Claudia Galli, Richard Ulfsäter, Starke man, Fjällbackamorden and Agneta Myhrman. Much appreciated.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you!.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Woolwich

Hi Ohconfucius. You reverted me with this edit. I added that content as a result of this request on the article's talk page by an IP. I will not revert you, but I would ask that you please comment in the talk page thread to say that you reverted it, and explain why. It's likely that the IP may not know how to check the edit history of the article and will wonder what happened to the content I added. Thanks! -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 07:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, you have your first objector to the revert. I think. I was a bit confused at first when I read it. ;) -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 18:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply

2010 assault in Kerala

Perhaps you should take another look at that article to see whether your remarks in its renaming discussion are really correct. — BarrelProof ( talk) 09:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Woolwich attack

I have restored some of the previous edits and left detailed edit summaries. In dealing with a case of this type, it's best to stick to the simplest statements, like a legal report, and not try to turn it into expressive literature. It means using more and simpler sentences.

For example the sentence "The assailants A and B were known to security" does tell us the names of the assailants, but it doesn't state who the assailants were. That information becomes adjunct to the lesser fact- that they were known to security.

The most important fact is- "The assailants were A and B". This must be the lead sentence in the section about their identities.

It is a matter of effective report writing as against journalism. You presume that your reader knows nothing, and you tell them the basics in simple sentences.

Amandajm ( talk) 06:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for your courtesy note. I do appreciate it. I shall take your criticism in the spirit in which it was intended. With respect, WP is not a journalism project, although I know some journalism profs use it to set assignments. WP's an encyclopaedia, so we need to make sure prose isn't oversimplified, so it doesn't go the wrong way and become Janet and John book. I really fail to see what advantage this revert had over my text. If you spotted any ambiguities in my text, you are free to amend it to remove same, but you should not do so solely because of your personal preference for grade one literature. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 11:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The justification for reducing the image to upright and calling it "portrait size" is nonsense.
The example given in the manual of style that is suggested as suitable for reduction to "upright" is an '"unusually tall" (I quote) image, a tall skinny picture of an Egyptian god. The notion that anything of "portrait format" i.e. upright rather than horizontal (landscape) ought to be sized as "upright" in the article is erroneous.
There are two good reasons for sizing something as "upright": 1. lack of space, 2. an unusually tall thin image. In this case neither applies. There is plenty of space, and the format of the picture is a normal photo shape.

Amandajm ( talk) 13:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Concerning the Janet and John change, yes, it is simplistic language. However, it needs to be stated that the men charged at the police. It is one of the facts. I suggest that an "and" could be placed between the two events, rather than turning what should be a clear statement into a "when" clause describing the point in the action at which the police fired. If this was not a case of serious crime, it would not be so important to state the matters in such clear fashion. Regarding the shots, it is possible that all eight shots did not hit the men, so it ought not be implied that they did. (however, if they didn't they might have hit a bystander... let's not go there!) Amandajm ( talk) 13:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Yeah. OK! Amandajm ( talk) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Hi, re: the Woolwich attack, I think it's clear to see it's a hoody. Look at the pics from him on the road. He's also wearing it in this youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7Ng1cQvSuzs

  • @ Oxr033:: "Hoodie" vs "T-shirt" isn't a detail many would give a shit over anyhow, but we must avoid saying "hoodie" when all of the sources say "T-shirt". WP is not allowed to have opinions. Please note that I'm not arguing that it wasn't a hoodie. We are only allowed to say what the sources say, and they say universally he was in a T-shirt. The text is accurate insofar as saying he was "reportedly wearing a [motif-bearing] T-shirt". So, to clarify, we are not saying he was wearing one, just that news reports said he was wearing one. What's there already is good enough for WP:V. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Another tool to protect article texts from formatting

Not sure if your scripts are protecting for {{ not a typo}} (and its possible redirect variants) yet... ? Dl2000 ( talk) 00:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Coaltrack

I have left a message on F's talk page concerning the re-insertion of this. More emphasis may need to be given to the fact that he was extracted from Kenya by British officials.

Is it you that is still fiddling with that pic? It looks bad and is unnecessary as it can be viewed at that scale on mobile phones. If it is not allowing a wide gap next to the quote, this is not important. If it is actually encroaching on the quote and blocking it out when you look at it, then it's a problem with your settings. There are there people who have moved it left. and enlarged it.

I have also messaged an editor about the reinsertion of Choudary's waffle. I am beginning to feel like a real bitch. Need coffee! Amandajm ( talk) 03:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for the heads up. It was me resizing and repositioning the image. There's a discussion opened yesterday about it. The left alignment is the real problem for me; mobile users prob don't care because they won't see it. Landscape images are fine. but portraits render too large, so it seems the problem isn't my setting by its de facto treatment as a horizontal image is. If you think his facial details are not sufficiently discernible at the present |upright| size, could I suggest that we cropped the picture to head-and-shoulders only? --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Dates

Hello, I have just recovered from minutes of laughing at you. Something called (Script-assisted style fixes per WP:TIES and date formats) just zipped through an article in which I have an interest and changed all the dates of The Times newspaper so they are now the opposite of as published! Why? Its seriously daft! Eddaido ( talk) 11:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Good heavens, I'd no idea you had responded, I've just come back to see if anything had happened, been watching the watchlist like a hawk. But I did explain. The Times and I think many other newspapers dates their publications in the format May 27, 2013 and so all the references have that style. You go through and change them all - why? It seems to me very silly. Right now The TImes says its publication date is Friday, May 31, have a look. Eddaido ( talk) 07:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
And which article did I do that to? Our guidelines say we should choose our own date format for each article. We don't necessarily follow the one given in the source itself. For American articles we would tend to use mdy, and for British (among others) we would tend to use dmy. If I didn't align the dates, imagine for two citations in an article, one from The Times (that uses mdy) and the other from The Guardian (that uses dmy), you would have one citation that reads May 27, 2013 and another that reads 27 May 2013, and that inconsistency is not what we want. And if you're really interested how we got there, please comb through the archives by searching for "dmy" or "mdy" at WT:MOSNUM. It may sound funny to you, but I like to line up the ducks all in a row. And if you happen across funnier proclivities/preoccupations than mine here on WP, please be sure to share it with me ;-) Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, there's making up names and signature styles. But seriously is it not quite daft? Why don't you go back and read what you have written above then pause for a moment to think about it. Eddaido ( talk) 10:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I've been thinking about this and working on this dates gig for more than two years now. Maybe not catching the joke just proves I'm not as clever as you. Conversely that could mean you're not as clever as me and that the joke's on you ;-). Anyway, you know where to find me if you want dates flipped in any article of yours. Of course, if you still laugh at me and want me to understand why, you need to let me in on the joke and which article you are commenting on. If you're not prepared to at least put me out of my misery, then I'd ask you to please stop trolling my talk page. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Interesting you should have introduced the topic troll. I see your only continuing activity in the same line is to follow where I have been working. I hope you have enjoyed your little jokes, long may they please you and your pal who wrote to me at your request. Eddaido ( talk) 00:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I mentioned your edit

At Talk:2013_Woolwich_attack#Applicability_of_Category:Military_history_of_London. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC) reply

ISO and WP:MOSNUM insistence on the spacing of the temperature symbol

Hi, could you please comment on this thread? Tony (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Something to look into...

Recently noticed an edit some time back on a Birmingham, UK subject. Just wondering if that was a typo? Dl2000 ( talk) 02:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Temperature formatting

Is it possible to add to the script this correction: all replaced by 70 ºC? [I've inserted nowiki, but still can't see the plus en bee, es pee semicolon.]

  • 70º (just a space after the º, with no C and no F, presume C)
  • 70ºC
  • 70 ºC

Thx, Tony (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Issue

Hi, DMacks has kindly pointed out a within-template issue of changing hyphen to dash. Could you please advise? And the temperature function seems to be working well—thanks! Tony (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Your recent AWB-edits.

Hi there. It looks like you have used AWB to replace Fußball-Bundesliga with Bundesliga like in this edit. I know you are not a big fan of the word "Fußball", but per WP:NOTBROKEN we shouldn't "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. When you fix other issues in the article, it wouldn't be a big problem to avoid these redirects, but when that is the only thing you do I'd call it trivial editing and is not what you should use AWB for.

You should also know that you have moved a lot of articles from Category:Fußball-Bundesliga players to the red-linked Category:Bundesliga players. The correct way of renaming a category is to list them for speedy renaming at WP:CFDS, and a bot will move the pages from the old category to the new category after 48 hours. Mentoz86 ( talk) 06:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for the advice. I actually have nothing against the word "Fußball" as such, if that's what is agreed upon. But now most German football articles have lost their "Fußball" through consensus. Many articles have been moved ('Fußball-Bundesliga' has been moved to 'Bundesliga'), and those categories won't be red-linked for long. CFSs were placed more than 48 hours ago. I'm just doing some minor fixes whilst anticipating the revised categories. regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 10:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Indeed, Fußball is gone from the article-titles, which is a good thing. But can you tell me what the noticeable effect of changing Bundesliga to Bundesliga is ? I believe that edits like that is violating "Rules of use" #4 at WP:AWB, in addition to WP:NOTBROKEN. Adding red-linked cats when the working blue-linked cats will be renamed by a bot in a couple of hours, should stop immediately. Instead you should use your time more constructive, like changing the titles of the 50ish Category:Fußball-Bundesliga seasons articles (and other similar articles) you have moved ("The 1989–90 Fußball-Bundesliga was the 27th season..."), and remove other visible mentions of Fußball whereever you find it. Cheers, Mentoz86 ( talk) 15:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
    • There are 6,585 articles on Wikipedia where Fußball-Bundesliga is mentioned (not piped), so you have plenty work to do instead of changing piped wikilinks that noone notices that you've changed. :) Mentoz86 ( talk) 16:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for counting the number of instances of unpiped 'Fußball-Bundesliga'. My intention is not to make inconsequential changes but to use the opportunity of updating the categories to make other style changes to the articles. Therefore, removing the 'Fußball-' shouldn't be the only changes I'm making to those articles. At the rate I'm going, my head start on the bots won't last long, and then, the risk of me making inconsequential changes if I run those categories will increase. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
        • But you shouldn't remove articles from the blue-linked category, even if it will be fix in a day or two, it will be a day or two when the article is not a part of a category it should be part of. And if I understand you correct, you do this because you want to use AWB to also remove the 'Fußball-' in piped wikilinks? Mentoz86 ( talk) 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Gosh, is that all that you're upset about to keep going on in this way? You don't seem to have fully understood my previous replies. No, the primary object isn't to remove 'Fußball-' and a fuller explanation of what I do can be found on my user page. I've been processing other footballer articles and I just thought I'd do the job of recategorising and cleaning up whilst I was running through these categories – it's more efficient. If it makes you any happier, I won't do it until the cats have been moved. Cheers, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
            • I'm upset that you do the unnecessary things, but not do the necessary things. You have moved 100-something (or even more) articles in the last week, without cleaning up after you (changing the title in lead, and adjusting sort-key and templates) . Instead you use AWB to remove a blue-linked category and add a red-link category (that a bot will fix in a couple of days anyways) combined with removing piped redirected links, which isn't what AWB is meant to be used to. Let the bot do the categories so that all of the articles stays in the correct category, and remove piped redirects when you have other things to do in those pages. Mentoz86 ( talk) 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Your script is still broken and/or you're not checking your edits - see this where you removed valid links to 2004 in Norwegian football et al. Giant Snowman 10:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Looking at your contribs, you made over 30 edits today at 10:52 (UTC), how on earth are you checking them all? Giant Snowman 10:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
@ GiantSnowman: - Looks like the script is working as designed - see the documentation at User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM_dates#Overview_2. GoingBatty ( talk) 12:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Well then they are not checking the edits then, which is considerably worse. Giant Snowman 12:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
[[2004 in Norwegian football|2004]] is what I would call a deceptive piped link. It seems to be a convention that years are not linked piped to something that is not a year article, so they are systematically removed by the script. If editors want 1994 in Norwegian football linked, the place for this is unpiped in the see also section. As to checking, they were, thanks. You asserted that I "made over 30 edits today at 10:52 (UTC)". Truth is I saved over 30 edits today at 10:52 (UTC), after having checked the output was as desired. The high number of saves at that time reflects my workflow using multiple windows. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The [[2004 in Norwegian football|2004]] link (and similar) is standard in footballer statistics tables, and the edit I have linked to above shows you removing some but not all, hence why I raised a concern. All should be left in. Giant Snowman 13:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The inconsistent treatment of links is due to the inconsistent target type. The piped year links were unlinked. OTOH, the piped season links are obviously, er, season links, so aren't misleading in the same way and not treated by the script. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Can your script convert the year links to season links? That would be the ideal solution. Giant Snowman 13:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Do you like this (done manually)? If not, give me the parameters (ie specifically what year links to what season), and i can try working them in. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
yes, that's what I mean. Giant Snowman 14:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Don't see a way of automating that, but that I was able to find a more specific link proves again that the 'year in Norwegian football' was too non-specific to have been useful anyway. I'll try working the principle into future edits. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
( talk page stalker) Might be good to review WP:YEARLINK to see if any clarification is needed for such cases. It may not be obvious to many editors that a link to YYYY in <Country>ian football may be "germane and topical" in football articles, the MOS:LINK language tends to discourage general use of year or year-subject linking. Dl2000 ( talk) 00:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
So the Norwegian football editors (like myself) should stop linking to "YYYY in Norwegian football" and replace those links with "YYYY Tippeligaen" and similar, or is that discouraged aswell? Mentoz86 ( talk) 08:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
@ Mentoz86:, direct links to the season article are preferred / encouraged. Giant Snowman 10:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Not so much the season article, but the more specific the link is, the more relevance is contributed to the reader's understanding of the subject. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Your script is now moving valid links from the prose, see this. Giant Snowman 10:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Armando Torres III DYK

Hi. Do you wish for me to add you at the Armando Torres III DYK nomination for contributing to the article? ComputerJA ( talk) 15:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Renomination with problems remaining

Hi- I've mentioned you in the thread above. Any thoughts you have would be welcome. J Milburn ( talk) 16:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Awarded for those excellent scripts. Industrious and great contributions! Keep them going! Fai zan 12:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Fai zan 13:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply

June 2013

Stop icon

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. VQuakr ( talk) 16:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply

ANEW

A report was filed at WP:ANEW against User:Fangorn-Y. I was mulling over the report because I was troubled by your conduct on the article as well as Fangorn-Y's. While I was ruminating, Fangorn-Y reverted yet again, so they are now blocked. What disturbed me the most about your behavior was the fact that you breached WP:3RR and immediately warned Fangorn-Y (in the same minute) for edit warring. It's true that you didn't revert after you yourself were warned, but you're an experienced user, and your warning to Fangorn-Y indicates that you knew what was going on. I'm not going to block you, but consider this a warning. If you edit Edward Snowden in any way that could be construed as a revert in the next five days, you risk being blocked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply

DYK for 24th anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

The DYK project ( nominate) 08:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Date script

Hi. At this diff, User:Tony1 apparently employed your date fixing script. The first line of the article was already:

{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2012}}<!--[[WP:STRONGNAT]]-->

and the script inserted a new line above it:

{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2013}}

which seems wrong. Shouldn't it just update the existing template call's date param (or do nothing – I don't really understand the date param in the context of this particular maintenance tag)? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 09:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply

That has not happened before in my knowledge. It's because someone, in their infinite wisdom, decided to add something following the tag, whereas it was intended to stand on its line on its own. That cased the script to not see the original tag. I'll adjust the script. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Uh, that was me. AFAIK, there are just a few pieces of markup to which newlines are defined to be significant (e.g. bullet lists, single-pipe table column dividers, etc.) – everything else is supposed to ignore them. When adding this template, I wanted to document the reason for the particular format selection. I originally wanted to add a |reason= parameter to the template, but that met with some opposition, so I went with an HTML comment (which I think certainly should be ignored) instead, to which (IIRC) there was no objection. I've probably done it to less than 50 articles. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Help

Hello Ohconfucius. How do you do? Actually I needed your aid in respect to the Pakistani English. Pakistani english is almost the same as the British English. So I want to get another option named: "Pakistani spelling". So that I get the {{'''Use Pakistani English'''|date=June 2013}} instead of {{'''Use British English'''|date=June 2013}}. So please help me, how is it possible? Can you make it for me? I tried it on my userspace but met a failure. I created a custom script here, but it did not work. Please help. Fai zan 11:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Good wishes ahead of your unblock. Now I am expecting a reply. Fai zan 08:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The script will require quite substantial engineering to accommodate this, and I had no intention of creating tens of English-language variant script functions because of the complexities involved. I won't (and more importantly can't) change your copy of the script. However, focussing on the problem you raised, I would suggest that in the first instance after running the script, you should replace any such English template with the generic {{ EngvarB}} template applicable to most non-British English codes closest to British English. I will make the necessary adjustments to the script to make sure the Pakistan English templates, if there are any in the given article, are left intact. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry to confuse you. I tweaked the script, but it left a second template if there should happen to be one there already, instead of simply updating the original one, so I have reversed it for now. Working on a solution... --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Ok thanks. But I want to get is "{{'''Use Pakistani English'''|date=June 2013}}". Cannot I replace the word "British" with "Pakistani"? Just aid me for this change in the script please. Fai zan 12:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Sure, but any aid for making it automatic from the script? Fai zan 07:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • From a priorities and maintenance standpoint, I do not intend to build the script to support multiple tagging any more than is supported at present (namely British, British (Oxford), Canadian, Australian). So I'm afraid the response to your question is no, that final step is likely to remain manual. And from a technical standpoint, I will need time re-engineer the script to move the tagging towards a more generic {{ EngvarB}} that can be probably be used for articles on Australian, NZ, Indian, Pakistani Singaporean, Irish, Seth Efrikin subjects. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I want to use the Pakistani english template only on the Pakistani topical articles. Obviously the template is not designated for a global readership. Fai zan 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I think Tony's question is about the underlying similarities or differences of Pak English vs BritEnglish. And what would be the problem in using {{ EngvarB}} on Pakistani articles? The templates in themselves don't mean anything, nor are they meant to supply any guidance. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes, and I have to question the assumption that Pakistani "topical" articles are for Pakistani readers only. This is not so. Tony (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Block

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Edward Snowden. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Bbb23 ( talk) 15:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ohconfucius ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

Request reason:

Blocks are supposed to be "preventative", and this has been so positioned. Bbb23 cites the previous episode, but other than that, there can be absolutely no evidence that I was going to participate in any edit warring this time around. There was no issue of over-reliance on primary sources that I had argued about in the first dispute. Anyhoo, I backed off from the last one. Subsequently, consensus strongly backed my position, and it was the other party who got blocked.

As to the current activity that led to the block, let's look at this objectively: I made three edits related to my own concern, and that of another editor (see article tagging), that this article was already too Hong Kong-centric. one editor immediately happened to object to it. Whilst it is true that the undoing of my edit was potentially an inflammatory situation, I had no intention of reverting, and Bbb23 has no proof to the contrary. I AM FURIOUS at the twitchy "shoot first, ask questions later" response. I think I was blocked within seconds. However, by acting so fast, Bbb23 self-deprived any valid rationale; there was no WP:ROPE, and no smoking gun. I would contended that this is to punish me retrospectively for the previous episode when he couldn't exercise the trigger finger.

So in summation, this was a BAD BLOCK. Given the already heated atmosphere at Snowden, and the prejudice that now exists, it would certainly be imprudent of me to make any more content edits there for the next 7 days. Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Accept reason:

Yes, it doesn't look like blockable edit warring to me. Consecutive reverts count as one revert. Bishonen | talk 06:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC). reply

This admin looks like a gun-totin' wild-west cowboy. Is he calmly assessing the situation and providing social leadership? Or is he making it up as he goes. Must be a power surge. Tony (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply


Dear me, I go away for a few years and you two are still getting yourselves into trouble! ;-) Anyway, just thought I'd stop by in passing and send my regards - I hope you're both well. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Bbb23 only wants comments from admins. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Will know in due course. Bbb23 summarily removed my comment on his talk page relating to this clock, so I'll repost it here.

You cannot be serious!! I'm flummoxed that this and this count as reverts in your book... Other admins might be doing it, but it seems a ludicrously draconian way to exercise your admin powers. Yes, I read the policy, and what you did seems to be allowed according to the rather wide definition of what constitutes a "revert". It turns any removal of content from the field of ' battle' (used advisedly), however small, into a potentially blocking situation making it much more powerful that most people would believe. I know you were acting in good faith to cool things down, but I would sincerely advise you not to rely on "others do it" as a justification, as this is the sort of situation that reinforces the view that many admins are abusive. Just because you have a sledgehammer, doesn't mean you have to crack the proverbial nut with it.

— posted 01:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

--  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

more on "Fußball-" removals

While I'm agnostic on removing "Fußball-" from various article titles, why on Earth did you try to anglicize the names of the Regionalligas? Something like " Regionalliga North" [sic] is neither English as such, nor is it an established English-language reference to the league in question, making WP:USEENGLISH wholly inappropriate as a justification for that aspect of the page moves. Zeyes ( talk) 04:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Requested move of Deadmaus

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_3_.28to_.22Joel_Zimmerman.22.29. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC) reply

DYK hooks

Ohconfucius, I wanted to give you a heads-up about editing DYK hooks. As part of your modifications to the World of Tanks Xbox 360 Edition hook, you added a quote, "in mere days". This is a quote from the original source, but it did not appear in the article: hooks should not include anything in that is not in the article and sourced there. This is especially true of exact quotes. I have modified the article so the quote is now in it and sourced, so this is no longer an issue, but I thought you should be aware regarding any future hook edits: any changes need to be reflected in the article and sourced there to be eligible for inclusion in the hook. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks. It had actually occurred to me, because I had to read the cited article to ensure that our article was true to the source and that I did not introduce any errors or ambiguities into the blurb. When doing so, I jumped the middle part of the chain. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Script-assisted change to format of date in title parameter of citeweb template

Hello. Please see where I fixed it. Perhaps the script was confused by the date concerned being within a {{ nowrap}} template? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 09:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Awesome script is awesome

I am so.... so... so... excited! The script does a lot of the tedious fixes and does them all at once! Combined with the rest of the general fixes I can make a lot of really important and MOS compliant changes without making multiple passes or bogging myself down with one thing at a time mentality. I like it a lot. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Glad you like it, Chris!
Suggestion #1 - [[Dutch language|Dutch]] to Dutch? Your thoughts? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Glad you like it, Chris! Unlinking "English language", sure, almost 100% of the time. Other widely known languages, where going to the article isn't much use, yes; but it requires a flick through of the diff before saving, just to check that unlinking isn't a problem. OC can advise about your specific example. Tony (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes; I found an issue with Ayn Rand which I just rolled back because it screwed with Night of January 16th and I didn't bother messing the rest of it up either. I doubt it needs a check for date in interlinks like this; they are sufficiently rare, but I was testing it. I also am maunally removing [[Italian language|Italian]] in cases of a list of languages students can learn at school for conformity and the obvious intention. [1] Seems like a large abuse of the national tags exist; but I am loving the county feature for United States towns. [2] That helps address the proper flow and maximize clarity of the subject and makes it appear better. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I agree that the protections may need to be strengthened. The AWB scripts got a bit neglected as I was concentrating my efforts on improving the monobook/vector scripts. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Major concern - It seems to be removing the DMY template, but shouldn't it be updating the last pass or is that needlessly redundant given MOS compliance? The category for it, [3] states that it is not a clean up category. Hence my confusion; I'm just going to be undoing the removals of it by hand for now. Since it seems MOS has progressed since its introduction, but I am not 100% certain of removal being valid right now. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The dmy template is deliberately removed by the script to facilitate its updating. You need to click on the 'more' tab, enable the append/prepend function, choose the prepend radio buttonm and then add "{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2013}}" to the box. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Minor suggestion? Doesn't DMY apply to access fields, but it does not seem supported. When I go through it will miss accessdate=2008-03-03, but it will update the rest in the template. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I've stopped using it for right now because DMY is not friendly to MDY for America; and the script doesn't seem able to flip all to a single preferred type. Any ideas on this? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Other than it not changing accessdates, can you explain what you mean by "doesn't seem able to flip all to a single preferred type"? --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I am aware that AWB has its own protection, and won't allow you to change stuff within for example blockquotes. So that would mean any citation templates caught inside such blockquotes would not be changed. Also, the script shouldn't go changing date formats inside filenames (very very common) and titles inside citation templates (quite common), so not changing those is not considered a problem. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It's unfortunate that you chose a bunch of South Dakota articles to work the module on. I know working on dates involves a tradeoff because these are not changes you can make to any/every article. That's why I said to you on your talk that it would involve more careful selection of articles to work on, such as working through national categories or Category:Use dmy dates. Although I still work mainly with dmy, it's a flexibility that the monobook/vector script gives me over the AWB modules. If you want, I can also create a mdy version, but you will have to give me a few days. In the meantime, you could try using User:Lightmouse/AWB/scripts/all_dates_to_mdy. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks; I'll try and pick better cases from now on; or at least until Wikipedia gets a format style solidified. In an ideal world I'd like for an option on AWB that gives "Convert to American MDY" and "Convert to DMY" as an optional pop-up that parses the number of citations of each type. Its a complex problem of which I do not know how to implement; but this would be closer to an ideal. Even better would be a stored summary of the rational in the edit summary or appended to a change list if anyone questions the edit. I rolled back my own actions for those places because I didn't want to leave the issues floating about, but yes I'd greatly appreciate a MDY for American workspaces. If you make such a module I can run the MDY and DMY modules on two separate instances of AWB through a list and alternate with a skip/save system. I've done this before with assessments because the kingbot plugin didn't work. Anyways... I'll busy myself with the DBZ matter and add more of my research to my sandbox. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 19:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I've begun working on them again... I am irritated with the other issue so I think I will run through the backlog. I've been using the high-light errors option to address the bracket backlog at the same time. Its rather sad to see so many examples of unclosed brackets in the middle of content... template clean up ones are better though. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I meant the DBZ mess; not bracket issues. Even so; when going through an updating the templates as I pass through; I might as well get every error I can in the process. If you do the American variant of this I wonder how I could target all pages without the dmy tag.. probably some find and skip function in AWB... Anyways; this is cool and it serves a valid purpose. I like it; and yes; the American town issue is a big like because even if its only on military articles for this pass, it catches a good amount of them. I do hope you make the mdy variant. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
OIC. I usually work from the dmy perspective, and skip the mdy ones, so if you work mainly on US subjects, our approaches will be more or less complementary. Now I'll get started on the mdy module. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Putain, Quelle drame chez toi! --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Just thought I'd mention that you should skip edits that merely change the template date as you could be pulled up for making inconsequential edits again. Another thing to pay attention to is the {{reflist|2}} or {{reflist|30em}} parameter. If there are fewer that say 4 references, it could cause weird ejects in the refs section. Best disable that line like I've done here. Cheers, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Okay, on the second point, but not the first. The whole point of updating the template is in the documentation to refer that it has been checked for DMY compliance and give a berth for other activities. The templates are almost three years old. If anything that rational and the intended purpose serves as a pretty good argument for maintaining the integrity and consistency of Wikipedia. If I do not update them any editor who follows in my footsteps or checks the last update will be given inaccurate information which wastes valuable contributor time and prevents a seemingly unaddressed backlog on for that category. Seems to be the technically best and intended option; don't you think? A bot cannot be allowed to do this task; it must be done by hand; so I believe it won't be a problem even in that instance because it has a good reason to be done and the majority do have fixes required. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply

It is also the only template which makes sense to do so; but I caught wind of some mass clean out of old POV tags that were never discussed by another AWB user... some from 2008-2009 when have remained on the page for so long. Tags are great for certain things and other times are a bit off putting. Wikipedia's maintenance requires that someone do the task, but doing so seems to upset the curators of their domains. We are here to build an encyclopedia and such janitorial tasks must be done alongside content ones. I'm not suggesting doing this for any other tag; but yes... my logic must be the same as yours. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks and done. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply

How is it coming along? I've been working hard at the backlog and so far so good; lots of changes to be made along the way. I've been going fairly slow and noticing a few issues with the script and the cases of "the (date)" when it is valid. Other than that.. not too many issues with it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply

'the [date]' can be a nuisance. I usually rephrase those, to remove its occurrence away from the date string so the script can't attack them when it passes through in future. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply

If you build out the American variant of the script; do you think I should begin inserting templates for future use in other articles not tagged yet? I am still addressing the backlog; and working on the bracket issue in the process with general fixes... do you notice it or no? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • It's not a problem to insert tags now, but it's much more efficient to do it all in one go. And there's no risk then of making inconsequential edits. I occasionally look at your contributions history, but don't notice the brackets – not something that interests me in the slightest... I'm re-acquainting myself with the AWB code to create a mdy version. I'll let you know when it's ready. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm avoiding the untagged ones so I don't upset anyone with it, but fair assessment. I notice a lot of broken brackets from past editors, not the script. Thanks for working on it for me; you'll like the results. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
It gives an error. Sorry, but I have no idea how to fix it. I copy and pasted it in and the error was with line 394. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't have AWB now, but need you to help me. I'm going to comment out the code line by line to see what's causing the problem. Can you try loading it again now, please? --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Compiled and loaded... testing... ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Seems good! It is making the proper changes and all. Not sure what was the issue. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
It was an html comment I left in there. The compiler regarded it as foreign but didn't ignore it, causing the failure to load. That's also why my it didn't fail in my test script, which ignored it. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Just a customary reminder to check the edits carefully, particularly the complex strings and the possible displaced commas. And let me know where they need patches. Sometimes, it's more helpful for me for you to save a bad edit to demonstrate the error and correct it in a subsequent save. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Okay... if I see a weird one that catches me; some are just easy to remove quickly without fretting about them. Though I wonder if another script could implement mph-km/hr conversions into articles that have them and format each one properly. I see the issue all over Wikipedia because weights and lengths and other measurements are in one style, when they should be templated for maximum accessibility. Template:Convert might be nearly impossible to implement in a AWB script though. Even as a separate script; I wonder if it is likely to gain support for wider use in articles. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I could try implementing any specific ideas you may have on that. Lightmouse was the editor who wanted to concentrate on units of measurement, but he met with some obstacles – some personal, sole operational – on the way, and he eventually gave up on WP. There are elements of his handywork still left in my scripts. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Then we will have to address that issue. If anything it should be targeted. But I'll ask a simpler one instead. Is there a way to parse regional affiliations for dmy and mdy tagging of content space that would hit all the relevant pages in a single shot. I was thinking the July dump would be a good thing to test it on... in a week or two. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I could essentially one-man such an operation over the course of a month or two, but it would require making a single edit to add just the template or else the pace would be extremely slow and likely require additional passes by AWB anyways. I've done huge projects before, but this one is bigger and more sensitive then I have ever worked on. I'd like to prepare it for August-October with around 30% completeness expected by that time. Granted it would be hundreds of thousands of edits... I've had the endurance and desire to bring completion to even immense projects like TypoScan's first run. [4] Even as a late entry into it; the results alone speak for themselves. Given the opportunity and the backing my endurance and patience can make good things happen. Of course; your script provides the tool and backing that such efforts would not be in vain. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

break 1

Yes; to tag the articles prior to a run, by placing just the template and then after all the templates are added begin addressing the issue with the script. Something that would take a very long time, sadly. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 12:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Had a revert of the changes at 9/11 Truth movement, I don't think it is a major issue since MOS allows the format, but should I make a list of pages that don't want these changes for future use? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Um, it's occupational hazard, I'm afraid. You'll find that won't be the first editor to do that. It accounts for why I had disabled the accessdate change – to stop being harassed by a small number of editors who jealously guard their precious yyyy-mm-dd access dates. I therefore stay away from US entertainment celebrity articles for that reason. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
People consistently screw those up in articles though and that's why the ambiguous date tags goes nuts at times. They are a real annoyance to clean up and it gets worse when any unknowing editor makes one error and before long the entirety is backwards or intermixed to the point that it is extremely difficult to fix it. Such changes seem to be doing the greater Wikipedia readers a favor; but that's my stance. I haven't had much kick back and have been thanked for this menial work. Is there an easy way to rule out pages that have DMY or MDY tags for future runs? I am sure I could default to adding them to articles in en masse if we end up having to start a RFC on dates or something... but that's a back up to a back up for me. Such good work can be stalled by a single objector... and I try not to make waves. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 00:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Truth is, the vast majority of editors simply don't care about date formats, which explains why there is such a mess. Everyone works in their own little corner, some inserting dmy dates as default along with an infobox, some placing mdy dates strictly in reference sections and not correcting anywhere else,or others adding tables with one date format or another in complete disregard for the prevailing format style. Nobody was fixing until I started aligning dates, because it's very fastidious doing it without any automation. I'm especially pleased with Notifications because scarcely a week goes by without someone thanking me for the date alignment.

Is there an easy way to rule out pages that have DMY or MDY tags for future runs?" Not quite sure what you mean. But there's a 'skip option' tab in AWB. Put in the regex \{\{use (dmy|mdy) dates into the skip box, tick "regex", and it should skip or filter any articles that have content matching or not matching the regular expression. If you want to target or exclude articles of any given month or year, like the ones you may have recently tagged, you only need to tweak the regex (e.g.\{\{use (dmy|mdy) dates\|date=June 2013\}\}) --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks I understand that now, and yes... my intention is to figure out a way to tag articles systematically and avoid re-duplicating the templates in the process. Then using continued improvements to your scripts, update them every once in awhile. Seems the script also doesn't catch all the abbreviation of dates in the article, where they should not be shortened. Or is there a problem with implementing that? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • As I attempted to explain earlier with article choice, the date format to use follows WP:TIES. I have been pondering the issue for a long time but have so far found no easy way of systematising the tagging for the entire WP library. But to summarise the general disposition, the only major English-speaking nations to use predominantly mdy are the USA and Canada. All other English-speaking countries' articles – as well as US military and the EU – can be put to dmy without any objection. Anecdotally, Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Philippine and Israeli articles are more frequently (typically somewhere between 75 and 95 percent of the time) found with mdy formats than dmy. I usually align articles relating to Commonwealth countries to dmy without problem. Articles of all other countries are free for all. As most other languages (other than noted) use dmy natively, WP articles tend to also be dmy although there's no hard-and-fast rule. You may also try using Date format by country as a guide. Some categories (American exception aside), such as rugby, cricket, and most forms of football also lend themselves to systematic alignment to dmy; ice hockey tends to be mdy. But the more international the editorship, the more likely for dmy to be used

    1exec1 ( talk · contribs), who helped my rewrite my js script, has another approach: he analyses the incidence of dmy or mdy dates using the database scan, and then applies the dominant date format per WP:RETAIN. That process allows him to run theough hundreds of articles at a time with maximal efficiency without even needing to stop and ponder whether it follows WP:TIES.

    My js script will usually expand month names, but only inside |date=, |accessdate= and |archivedate= within references. It hasn't been done so far because of the risks of false positives and script bugs (and because I had forgotten about my AWB scripts until I offered them to you). I suppose can make it expand others too – certainly for 'full' dates. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • I've made thousands of edits already with it, and the ideas keep coming. One of the issues I noticed was that the script modifies intrawiki links even if doing so creates a red link. [5] I created the page a minute later. [6] But have had this happen twice in the last 250 edits. I'm careful when using the script, but this seems to be a case of the actual article's title being incorrect... Doesn't seem to happen too often; but I don't want to accidentally break half a page in the process. And for that script thing... yes that's what I'd like; to add the dmy or mdy based on dominant. That'd be much easier for me! ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I'd say the title was wrong, and perhaps needs to be moved; the redirect is the right first step.

    Processing date tagging based on dominant format is definitely the most efficient. I don't know how it was done, and unfortunately 1exec1 is not that active any more. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • We have time; I'd ask and hope for the best... but I think I have a way to tag them on my own; just nothing that advanced seems to be runnable in AWB unless the entire script was converted for it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I think the script needs to stop altering interwiki links with hyphens and changes to "On" and other tweaks. I don't know if you can code it up quickly; but I am beginning to worry that I might have broken some links if I missed them. Its not frequent... but its becoming a concern for me. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There doesn't seem to be a way of specifically avoiding wikilinks. I've now disabled the downcasing of 'On', as I do agree that it is the case that most often causes problems despite me having inserted code in to reinstate specific, identified situations. Downcasing "Of The" and "In The" has never caused problems for me, even in links, because titles in WP invariably get changed and I've been comforted to find that out when checking the changes. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Again the issue of assess date and such... sorry, but I think it should be disabled until something is done about it, I don't want to get involved in a dispute. The unnatural and confusing system for many readers is not backed by consensus yet. I'll do MDY and DMY tagging instead okay? At least until you can tinker with the script. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 00:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
    •  Done Most people won't object, and some positively love their removal. I was going to suggest that you continued until someone objects, because complaints won't necessarily happen if you stay away from US entertainment celebrities' articles. In any case, I've amended both pieces of the code so that yyyymmdd accessdates are left but it will still convert those that are downright wrong of not consistent with the prevailing style. You can use the 'before' of 'after' versions as you see fit. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I did get a bit of a complaint about it; so until the matter is decided, I rather not paint a target on myself. I'm going to do many many many changes; the last thing I need to do is make controversial ones en masse. Thanks for making the fixes. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing to it. I also bet that the complaints are nothing like as intense as the hiding you received for "inconsequential edits" ;-) But then again, I have had some really nasty complaints some months ago about accessdates. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

regarding this, it is likely the insertion is related to your prepending the dmy/mdy templates. Go to the 'more' tab in AWB, and you can select the number of lines to insert after the template (make sure it's on "0"). --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Its on 1, before it was 2. 1 doesn't cause breaks, but 2 certainly does. Also, could you pop in at User_talk:Walter_Görlitz#Ummm? The two of you are more familiar with this then I. Walter is saying that updating the template is wrong; I've linked the documentation, and is asserting that DATERET is the reason why. The intention has been clear in the documentation for years; and it makes sense. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Break 2

So I asked and figured out how to tag all the articles relatively easily with dmy or mdy and practiced on some of them. Ideally, every page should be tagged - even preemptively for the citation style, correct? I cannot leave this up to some bot or script; I'll have to do every one by hand and rationalize the decision where it is not immediately obvious. I've also done a few thousand more pages on the backlog and addressed a lot of issues, with only a few errors that I have to manually address every dozen or two pages. If I keep up this pace, the backlog will be addressed by the end of July and I can begin working on the major untagged elements. I just need to find what to do and how best to execute it with a guideline I can follow; I've been going by TIES and existing formats and defaulting to scope and region for DMY or MDY in my test run. I think I need a concrete form to go by though. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 20:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I see that some of Chris's edits aren't converting the YYYY-MM-DD dates in the |accessdate= parameters. For example, check out the edit history for Baby, You're a Rich Man and TRS-80 to see Chris's edits using the AWB module and my edit immediately after using the script. Is this a bug or by design? Thanks!
Batty, they are specifically omitted because I got push back from Masem for this edit. [7] So removing the accessdate changes was the best option, but the plain date field should still be changed. The script actually will address YYYY/XX/XX format ones though; as they are not acceptable - if ambiguous the script will skip other cases as well. I'm not out to make a fuss or enemies; so because access and archive date are allowed to be YYYY-MM-DD the script will not touch them. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • To be fair, I think most Wikipedia users do not understand what DATERET is and they use it like WP:OTHERSTUFF even when it doesn't apply for fairly obvious reasons. With four variants on the citation style at one page the editor is claiming it is I who is changing the date format. For example: "Retrieved 2011-06-07." and "Retrieved August 24, 2010." over at Microsoft Expression Web. Somehow my changing of the ISO to MDY has an issue with DATERET. While I don't like pointing out the error; it was not a mistake. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Chris, you have been working through the backlog at an impressive rate. You started on the assumption that all dates were either dmy or mdy. You know, the real problem, as was pointed out to me at WT:MOSNUM, is that the {{ use dmy dates}} tagging did not account for multiple date formats in use on a single page. So now we have a piece of string upon which we must both push and pull. Had the tagging been {{use dmy dates|dmy|ymd}} or somesuch (to include the possibility that |date= and |accessdate= could be different), semi-automated alignment could take place uniformly and without guessing or second-guessing. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm kinda confused, because I believe ISO is acceptable for access/archive dates, just as it is outlined at MOSDATE, but I still believe a single format for all other aspects. MDY and DMY should not be on the same page unless it is one of the rare exceptions. MDY variations like Mar 10 and March 10 should not be allowed to co-exist either. The ISO variants for access/archival do not bug me in the slightest, it is not a battle I want to wage. If I am doing something wrong, please let me know. Oh and if you are suggesting an alternate form or change to the template before I do mass tagging; definitely let me in on it. I have everything ready to go on my end. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • One of the primary drivers in MOS is consistency. Having MDY and DMY on the same page violates that, except when we refer to articles or works that have the other format. I agree that MDY variations like Mar 10 and March 10 should not be allowed to co-exist either. The AWB script currently doesn't make that change although my js script will change these. Let me update the code to expand those abbreviated forms. As to changing the tagging, I actually think it's a good idea going forwards. People will be confused, though, unless the change has been broadly thrashed out. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Okay. So what should I do? Continue to update the backlog for MDY and DMY to be useful fixing the issues? Should I tag a bunch of all articles as DMY or MDY? Should we just leave the ISO issue as a side matter for later while other issues are fixed in the mean time? Out of how many thousands of edits, only a few concerns have popped up. The only meaningful ones are the ISO ones. Though yes; one format per page... with specific exceptions, is my ideal. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'd suggest you carry on as you were. This is a never-ending project until it can be fully automated. Any changes to the {{use}} tagging system can come in later. As I said, the vast majority of editors don't much care so long as dates are consistent. The "concerns" come from a very small number and are not always soundly justified; those that are justified can usually be accommodated somehow with some minor adaptation or workaround. As in any democratic/consensual system, there will always be sticks in the mud. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, okay. I don't want my numerous changes to be used to strong-arm a consensus or anything. And true; I'm up for working with any editor who takes issue with the changes; however many have been from indifferent to rude. Same as anywhere else on the project. Unlike your assertion; I doubt that bot operation will ever be completely automated for the reason that typo fixing cannot be automated. A single false positive can screw things up, but a thousand or ten thousand of them will be worse, especially with blind enforcement. Unlike with typos; a bot error rate would be thousand or more times worse. At my pace; its not hard either. So I will update my AWB and continue on. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Okay, will this apply to the rest of the article as well? The short form seems okay per MOSDATE, but not two variations of either type. In fact, the more I look at MOSDATE the more it seems that some horrible compromise was drawn because it links to the citation which seems only to detail the ISO issue, but not the conciseness aspect. I really don't see why ISO is even allowed as a third aspect because DMY or MDY are the "everywhere" form and we are to use only one format. Doesn't it seem to be odd that DMY and ISO can co-exist, but not MDY and DMY? Even more so that ISO is not "everywhere", making it an awkward choice to use one format in the article and another in the referencing... commonly both formats in the same citation. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It is definitely a horrible compromise. You may be aware of the WP:ENGVAR rule, which is an equally horrible compromise. These are the sorts of things bred by committees. The system is creaking under the weight of legacy of consensual compromise, as witnessed by the escalation of both number and intensity of conflicts. Oh how I wish that there would be some revolution, and the monarchy restored ;-), then we might have some decisive rules for a change.

    And no, I have to be tight on the scope so the script will not expand abbreviated month names elsewhere. When I wrote an earlier version of my js script, I couldn't find a way of ensuring no false positives for things like works and titles. That problem still exists for me with AWB. I may be fine writing regexes, but my non-existence programming skills means I won't be able to make such improvements without assistance from a programmer. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Ah... I think I am beginning to see why Wikipedia is in the state that it currently is in. Many conflicts seem to be waged over trivial issues and a few people are intent on carrying them on as much and as long as possible. Some of the eng var issues are a given; but Wikipedia has a terrible system for dealing with it. Personally, given the reading of MOS, ISO seems to be the odd one that is encroaching only because of the template citations. They cause considerable confusion and are very easy to screw ups in other sections and formats. It got most of this for instance, but I needed to finish the rest by hand. [8] The ISO issue, if swapped, would ruin the flow for the access and archives. I've seen them abused before because AWB throws an alert to notify me and they are not fixable without caution or research. Anyways... keep up the good work! I'll keep plugging along. I got about 4000 done today, but I'll do a bunch more before I do something else. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The yyyy-mm-dd dates is only really a problem for references as they became somewhat entrenched with the now abandoned 'Date Autoformatting'. Now some people (usually nerds who actually like and are more comfortable with this format) are refusing to accept the evolution of the WP utilitarian reality and readers' need to see and parse dates. We can only make a sow's purse out of the proverbial pig's ear. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I tried to write the AWB code to minimise errors. Where there are pervasive use of slash dates on a page, like Ivor Broadis, these are better handled by script. I have a button that flips them all, not just the unambiguous ones. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I wonder how many of those yyyy-mm-dd dates defaulted in from Reflinks instead of a decision by a human editor to have the dates formatted that way. GoingBatty ( talk) 17:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Too many, but to the yyyy-mm-dd-lover, it doesn't matter. It's anecdotal justification that some editor deliberately placed those dates, thus marking the 'first major contributor' rule. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter ( talk) 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Tank Man meets Rubber Duck

Thanks for uploading the picture to english wiki, can you please also upload it to wiki commons?

BTW, those "contributors" of Chinese wiki they are always removing contents about tank man, the tank man vs rubber duck picture will become a powerful weapon by posting it in Chinese wiki, though I think they will undo my edit.

Anyway thank you for your contribution, have a nice day. 116.49.203.248 ( talk) 03:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Unless it can be established that it is GFDL (public domain) image, commons will delete it. Irrespective of that, I am boycotting Commons because I totally disagree with the way in which they delete files. Your best bet would be to upload the file directly to Chinese Wiki on the same " fair use" grounds. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Wang Lijun and Snowden

About this edit, do you know what the article title is? I may locate it on the SCMP website. WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Tightened?

This edit escaped me. Now we have on the Main page a hook with a grammatical error, not naming the birthday child, saying "today", carefully avoided by the reviewer. I hope not for long, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Suggestion for AWB modules

Hi Ohconfucius! Saw the links to the AWB modules for date formatting - I'll have to try them out sometime. I noticed that there is some code in the modules that seems to duplicate AWB functionality. For example, your module changes {{ bda}} to {{ birth date and age}}, which is also part of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. While those changes are great to be used in non-AWB scripts, you may want to remove them from the AWB modules to get a little better performance. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

The Telegraph (Calcutta)

This is not a very serious issue and thus does not need reversion, but, can you add a rule that the newspaper's name is The Telegraph (Calcutta), here Calcutta is not location. -- Tito☸ Dutta 07:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:IMOS

WP:IMOS and WP:IRE-IRL are being ignored by your bot creating inconsistancies. Please rectify. Murry1975 ( talk) 10:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Sorry, you'll have to do better than leaving cryptic messages on my talk page. Anyway, attempting to understand/address your issue, when I come across 'Ireland' link that is piped to 'Republic of Ireland', I simply remove the link and replace with 'Republic of Ireland'. WP:IRE-IRL is mainly about making the distinction between the country and the island, and I don't believe that my changes breach WP:IRE-IRL in any way as that's the underlying target the author intended to relate to. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral.js

Here is my code review.

  1. The first rule with the months looks complicated and very specific. I guess it to remove useless links from dates?
  2. {0,1} is the same as ?.
  3. There are lots of [ ] in your code. They can all be replaced with a simple space.
  4. "rem empty parameters": I have a rule in my script to remove empty unnamed parameters from infobox templates.
  5. I'm surprised how many rules are specific for the English language. All the upper/lower case rules. Wow.
  6. I found it a good idea to always use [^\{\}] (or simply [^{}] which is the same) instead of [^\}]. This avoids false positives with nested templates.
  7. In the "remove scroll bar for reflists" rule the part [\S\s]* should be [\S\s]*?. Also you can remove the (?:) from this rule.
  8. "replace various single quotes and prime symbol with straight apostrophe": No typographic quotes? Really? This is strange. They have so many advantages. The disadvantages described in the MOS are minor. I have to change my script then. To bad.
  9. Your "replace various single quotes" rule is duplicated.
  10. I'm afraid of removing all spaces in front of every <ref>. Your script does it. Should I too?
  11. I like your rule to remove duplicate spaces: /([\w;,.\])>] ) +([[\w(])/g (I made it a little bit shorter). I should keep this in mind.
  12. No space in 1%? Another one I have to change in my script.
  13. What if my script continues to replace "1$" with "1 $"? This is both wrong in English, right?
  14. Shouldn't the "wiktionary" rule place a [[wikt:]] link?
  15. Your "copyright" rule simply removes all copyright symbols, even from the article copyright symbol. ;-)
  16. It's good to know that an \dx\d rule (without spaces) produces lots and lots of false positives.
  17. Your two "turn letter 'x' into symbol" rules can be merged with the /(\d) x (\d )/ rule above.
  18. The "Celsius" and some other rules can be merged. Oh, and it seems you missed a \. Here is a suggestion: /(\d)(?:\s|&nbsp;)?(?=\[\[Celsius\|[°º]C\]\])/gi.
  19. Repeating the "remove leading zeros from convert template" rule three times is a bit strange. Make it /(\{\{convert\s*\|)\s*0+(?=[1-9])/gi, '$1'.
  20. "rem bolding from linked AND bolded terms": Isn't this valid sometimes? If not, why not remove the link and keep the bolding?

-- TMg 21:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for you thorough evaluation. Comments or responses as below:

  1. The first rule is indeed to remove useless piped links from dates to sections within year articles.
  2. Agreed and now amended.
  3. It makes some spaces easier to see. Also, I seem to remember that putting a space immediately after the opening / (slash symbol) created a code error for me. But I've now replaced it and I'll see how it goes.
  4. "rem empty parameters": will change description accordingly
  5. Yes, we generally use sentence case, and we downcase prepositions of five letters or fewer, per MOS:CT.
  6. Agreed and now amended.
  7. "remove scroll bar for reflists" rule. Agreed and now amended. I've been wondering why the code doesn't catch all instances of scroll bars, just like it doesn't always find <references /> or {{ reflist}} and replace with {{reflist|30em}}
  8. "replace various single quotes and prime symbol with straight apostrophe": I actually quite like them too, as they are unambiguous, but MOS:QUOTE prefers straight quote marks, so it's what I do
  9. Your "replace various single quotes" rule is duplicated. [Holding response - couldn't find it on first look]
  10. removing all spaces in front of every <ref>. I've found no disadvantages, and in fact it adheres the citation more closely to the phrase to which it relates (or to another citation).
  11. rule to remove duplicate spaces: now amended
  12. No space in 1% per WP:PERCENT
  13. replace "1$" with "1 $"? We put currency symbols immediately before the numeral. On the other hand, we seem to allow "200 HKD" as well as the "HK$200"
  14. "wiktionary" rule. It's just simpler to remove them outright. They are usually put in to supply glosses that I find unnecessary most of the time.
  15. "copyright" rule. There are only a handful of articles dealing with copyrights, but lots of straight copying of the publisher with symbol into citations, making the false positive rate acceptable.
  16. YEs, \dx\d rule (without spaces) produces never-ending of false positives, particularly in sport (athletics) articles, and often disturbs links.
  17. Your two "turn letter 'x' into symbol" rules. I encounter too many errors that I will drop that line.
  18. The "Celsius" and some other rules can be merged. Agreed and now amended.
  19. "remove leading zeros from convert template" rule. Agreed yours is better. Now amended.
  20. "rem bolding from linked AND bolded terms": The rule has been disabled because it's impossible to do a hard-and-fast determination of which should be removed.

Thanks again for your help and advice. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  1. "I seem to remember that putting a space immediately after the opening / (slash symbol) created a code error for me." I can't think of a reason why this should happen. Spaces need to be escaped as \  when you use the /x modifier. But this is not supported in JavaScript. OK, thanks
  2. "will change description accordingly". This was meant as a hint that you can look at my code (look for "cleanTemplatesByRules"). Gotcha
  4. "I encounter too many errors that I will drop that line." Which one? All "×" rules? – yes, that's the one
  5. Please note that I missed to escape the &nbsp; above. Noted
  7. "The rule has been disabled". I don't see a change. Are you editing a local copy? Yes. Explanation below

-- TMg 12:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I first make changes to my test script, then transfer to production when I'm satisfied that I've mastered the risk of bugs, and false positives. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I do the same. Oh, deployment cycles. I love and hate you the same time. I changed so much in the past weeks (rewrote my language and keyword localization support, added a new set of rules to get rid of deprecated HTML), it wouldn't be possible to do this without a beta test. And without my collection of nearly 500 test cases. Thanks a lot too for helping me reducing false positives. PS: By the way, you could update all your documentations to link to Special:MyPage/common.js for all skins. -- TMg 16:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Per MOSNUM, currency signs come before the value and are unspaced. The biggest problem we have is Europeans who import articles into en.WP without translating this formatting for euros. I see, all over the place, horrors like 30 €. It's as bad as the swapping of the comma–period functions in number format (35,4% and 1.020.556). Sends English-speakers into a spin. Tony (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Your "Sources" script

Hello, Thanks for your message on my talk page about your "Sources" script. I discover that I already have it in my vector.js page, but it doesn't work. Maybe this is because I am using Chrome browser. I switched from Firefox a while ago. Is there any chance your script will soon work in Chrome as well? Thanks -- Alarics ( talk) 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) Hello Alarics. I have tried 3 of his scripts and all of them work on Chrome. I have no problem using them in Chrome. There may be a technical issue there with your gadget. Fai zan 12:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I seem to recall there may have been a problem with Windows Vista/IE, but I'm not aware of problems with Chrome. It might be an incompatibility. I suggest that you tried purging your vector and load the scripts one by one. I also note that you are still using the Lightmouse script. I've further developed it and it is now much more powerful and with more sophisticated protection. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Thought I'd also mention that the MW techies have been fiddling with the software today, and all my scripts have been affected. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Continued awesomeness

Made a new section for easy replying. A script to flip them all is indeed nice, but a bit too late for that page. Haha. At what point do you think the updating of the articles is appropriate to stop parsing them? Six months prior or just do them all to July 2013 so that all pages have a shot at the other fixes in the script? Estimated time to completion would be September/October; if I go all out on it without interruption... end of August at latest. Personally, I'd stop after all the May ones are done and begin tagging all articles with dmy/mdy tags while the ISO issue can be debated to death. What do you think is good? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Truth be told, I've been targeting articles not yet tagged, and my throughput is between 150–300 articles a day. I'm not hugely obsessed with the backlog, but it's great that you've been ploughing through it so efficiently. Your progress and the projection are awesome. If you do all those tagged from August 2010 to December 2010, you will have processed 40,000 articles, which will be terrific. If you do all those tagged from August 2010 to December 2011, you will have processed 120,000 articles – half the backlog, which I think is really quite satisfactory. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 05:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redrose took the updating the template matter to AWB talk as violation of rule 4. Here. I previously explained to the editor the purpose and how I am trying to prevent "only" those changes, but they are unavoidable at times. Anyways; even half the back log is a lot to do. So we will see. Perhaps more fixes can be found and added later for a second pass after all dmy and mdy are tagged. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 12:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Another issue with "linking dates" on my talk page. Unless I am gravely mistaken my argument for the removal is appropriate under MOS. Could you comment on it? Arthur Rubin undid over 100 of the edits and seems to be defending a walled garden approach that goes against MOS and two of the three examples on WP:YEARLINK and WP:DATELINK. It seems all of the individual year articles have this major problem, but January and 1940s through 1970s do not. I pointed out an example of such problems to him, but I could use your expert opinion on the matter. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I wasn't aware there were any date articles among the backlog. Yes, Arthur Rubin. You're right about walled garden, because that's truly what the ring-fencing amounts to. Oh how I wish I could spray abundantly with Roundup! I have never been impressed with his arguments nor he with ours. And there was no real consensus to unlink dates in "chronological articles" as a consequence of the big hooha at WT several years back, so I generally leave the weeds to grow there. Because we're working transversally in the project and touching about thousands of articles, it's common to find these little empires around WP. Most of them cause no problem vis à vis date formats or unlinking. Occasionally we also see the occasional skirmish at the fringes ('Year in Xxx' articles) with an editor called Deb, and Always Learning constantly reverting some changes I make to football player articles. But there's now't to do, I'm afraid. Occupational hazard, again. Maybe one day, the weeds will be so bad that Roundup will be useless, and napalm may be needed. Until then... --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Discussion is still important, I don't know the problem history that well, but I was keeping the MOS in mind when I saved the edits. Rubin has been nice and considerate; the last issue I had was with that editor who didn't understand the changes and mocked me. I am confident we can get a resolution to the problem. I don't want to start a wiki-war. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Could I ask you only watch Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#MOS because its really my only offer. If it is declined, I will drop the MOS compliance issue from years and avoid those articles for the time being. If getting a handful of GAs is required to impose compliance and lead by example; I'll gladly throw 40-80 hours worth of research and work into it. This will mean a great slowing of the backlog... but you seem to be also itching to have this problem done, but your tone and history suggests that such an offer has never been brought up as a negotiation. I've never done a GA or FA, but if that is an acceptable compromise - I'll do it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Although the rather senseless linking of dates and years bugs me no end, what we have is already much much better than any of the other language wikipedias. The walled garden isn't going away any time soon. There has never been any consensus to remove date or year links therefrom. I usually stay away from 'chronological articles', although I sometimes inadvertently end up editing at one or another such article and press save. They might get reverted but I never deliberately monitor them to find out the fate. I'd say it's not worth the effort to do any sort of work at those articles, as it usually is not appreciated or you can get summarily reverted. The only issue is scope – which articles does this 'exemption' specifically apply to. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • And the scope allows only those which are relevant and key; i.e. the preceding and successive years, decades, centuries and millennial articles. There is strong reasoning to suggest that linking that which is prohibited on the biography (date+year for birth and death) is not intrinsic in any form to the function of the article. People also don't go about reverting GA's because that would be disruptive and damaging to the encyclopedia on purpose. Even before it reaches that level such changes would be unequivocally affirmed as positive so that the reverter will be in a bad predicament. Besides... I need to start doing GAs and FAs anyways. Might as well have a bunch of non-pornographic ones to balance out the inevitable... ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • So you would like a separate MOS-compliance script? Quite a few style compliance issues – the low-hanging fruit, with low risk of false positives – are already incorporated in the current AWB script. If you want an even more comprehensive library of changes, I need to go through the MOS page by page, and think about how to add them all as regex rules. It could take some time. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It'd be rather ideal, and yes... A separate script which exists to correct punctuation, and CHECKWIKI type errors. I'm not sure, but a "dead link" fixer would by itself be the most valuable contribution I could come up with! A script to check the link against a host of pages - via resurrect. Something like this but with automated checks. [9] Even as a stand alone, I'd like to run a check in AWB for dead links, then on the individual article page find each marked "dead link" template and check that URL automatically in each of the cache and check the page for 404 errors of some sort. Bonus props would be for saving a copy of the cache in a folder on the computer of the script user as a html or something - so if it 404s again the person can remirror the resurrected page. Thoughts on that? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I may have told you so already, I'm fine with writing regex rules and occasionally adapting others' code, but otherwise my programming skills are non-existent. I don't have a clue how to do all that stuff on your wish list. Magio or Kumioko might be able to help more with that. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Date formats

Hello. I just wondered if you could do what you did to this article on Seb Brown ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Seb_Brown&diff=next&oldid=562335258)

On this article for Barry Fuller ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Fuller)

As the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jodie25 has changed all the dates in the article to the incorrect format, seen here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Barry_Fuller&diff=562411292&oldid=562410874)

If you have the time to do this, that would be great.

Many thanks. 92.40.254.19 ( talk) 17:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) -  Done. GoingBatty ( talk) 23:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Death year and age template

Hello. Was wondering why you/your script were adding a |df=yes parameter to uses of the {{ death year and age}} template, given that AFAIK this template neither has nor needs a |df= parameter? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 08:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alex Jackson (footballer born 1905), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Renton ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

London Evening Standard

Hello, I have got your script partially working now, and it is a great boon. Thanks for all your work on it. But there is one thing it is doing wrong -- converting "London Evening Standard" to "Evening Standard (London)". In fact the former is now correct, the masthead having read "London Evening Standard" since the paper was relaunched in 2009. See its website and the WP article on it. Best, -- Alarics ( talk) 18:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • What do you mean "partially working"? ;-) It was a dilemma I was facing when I wrote that rule, but it was to fulfil the need to be consistent with the WP article nomenclature. I will remove the disambiguation brackets. Everyone knows it as the London Evening Standard even before the relaunch, yet the WP article is located at Evening Standard ('London Evening Standard' is a redirect). --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

So maybe we should rename the WP article to London Evening Standard? Or would somebody get upset about that? -- Alarics ( talk) 04:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

"Sources" script

Hello again, When I click "Fix news sources" or "Rem publishers" in the toolbox at left, and nothing happens within a few seconds, does that mean that the article doesn't need any changes in those respects, or that the script isn't working in my browser, or that I need to wait longer before something happens? -- Alarics ( talk) 10:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • That function of the script is very fast as the repertoire of publishers is quite limited. So don't be surprised that it doesn't remove all publishers. The ones acted on are those related to periodicals that are most commonly seen in the US popular culture articles, such as The New York Times Company, Gannet, News International, Conde Nast, Filipachi, Time Inc. If there are any that you commonly see that are not removed, please let me know and I will consider adding them to the library. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Here are two that I have seen often enough:

  • publisher = Guardian News and Media Limited
  • publisher = Associated Newspapers Limited

-- Alarics ( talk) 09:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

MOSNUM dates.js + HTTPS

Hello. Please see User talk:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js#HTTPS. -- AVRS ( talk) 21:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Edward Snowden". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk 05:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peter Latchford may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 01-11: Celtic 1–1 Aberdeen, Premier Division |publisher=The Celtic Wiki |accessdate=6 July 2013}}{rs}}</ref><ref>http://www.fitbastats.com/celtic/player_games.php?playerid=562&page=2</ref> He finally

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 08:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, Ohconfucius. At this edit you removed some links in the Nigel Malim DYK hook and said "one was grossly misleading". I guess you had in mind "the French"? Of course, there were also the Free French, who until November 1942 were very few in numbers and impotent, while Vichy France was the government of France. So I really can't agree with "grossly misleading" for the period in question. I wouldn't wish to argue with the link " collaborationist French", but I wouldn't have said that myself, because the situation was incredibly complicated. I thought the other links in the hook I proposed were interesting and did no harm. Anyway, when you are making such changes to a hook, would you mind leaving the original one on the page and proposing an Alt? Regards, Moonraker ( talk) 10:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • @ Moonraker:. Thanks for the heads up. I see you made mine into an alternative. In fact, the one I thought was grossly misleading was '[[MAS (boat)|torpedoed]]'. It doesn't seem you had an issue with that one. I merely changed the French for what I thought was more precise from an "interesting" viewpoint. I'd still want to unlink 'torpedoed', though, as the link is not only misleading but entirely unnecessary. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the reply, Ohconfucius. An MAS boat in the Second World War was a motorboat armed with torpedoes, and the torpedoes referred to in the Nigel Malim article and hook came from two of them. According to this citation (relied on in the article) they were MAS 16 and MAS 22. So I don't follow the "grossly misleading" comment if it applies to that link? Moonraker ( talk) 14:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Sure the MAS was a torpedo boat, but it could be implied that the MAS is a type of torpedo, and you wouldn't know unless you clicked on or hovered over the link. You could say it was shot by torpedoes from a MAS boat, or simply that it was torpedoed. Either way, I feel that the link is surplus to requirements. You might surmise now that I absolutely detest this continual habit of making 4 accessory links to support [one] main DYK link. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Bahraini uprising (2011–present)

Hi, I had a few questions about this edit. I understand the idea of not linking to common terms and try not to do it myself but I'm not sure that [[Prime Minister of Bahrain|Prime Minister]] is that common a term. I noticed that you changed most or all occurrences of Al Jazeera English to Al Jazeera, mainly in references. Some were correctly changed but others were actually referenced to the Al Jazeera English website and Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera are two separate things. I was also curious why you would change direct links to redirects such as [[Shia Islam|Shia]] to [[Shia]] or [[Shotgun shell#Birdshot|birdshot]] to [[Birdshot]]. In most cases that's not a problem but you changed [[Torture during the Bahraini uprising (2011–present)|torture in government custody]] ( torture in government custody) to [[Torture during the Bahraini uprising (2011–)|torture in government custody]] ( torture in government custody) and {{ Bahraini uprising (2011–present)}} to {{ Bahraini uprising (2011–)}}. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 22:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for your query. The [[Prime Minister of Bahrain|Prime Minister]] [[Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa]] construction is a rather common "chain link" – two or more links that are adjacent to each other – that does the reader no favours at all. I try to simplify this by removing the former, which in any event is linked to from the latter article should the reader choose to divert there from the article being read. The links with section headings were replaced by Reflinks, and although the 'Shia' link was done by me, these all come under "redirects are cheap" argument.

    As I understand it, Al Jazeera English is a "station" and Al Jazeera is the umbrella news organisation. It may be arguable that AJ English is a more precise target, but using the generic 'Al Jazeera' as the publisher isn't incorrect. Quite clearly, it's not likely that we would cite Al Jazeera Arabic as a matter of course, so there is no ambiguity. When examining the links, you will find that they redirect back to www.aljazeera.com even though the cited ref might begin with english.aljazeera.com. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

    • Cambridge, long time no type ... I hope you're doing well. A few observations: the within-double-brackets change is clearly an auto-glitch. Like my own use of these (excellent and evolving) scripts, there are usually manual changes, even unlinkings, in an edit, too. Possibly "Prime Minister of Bahrain" was one ... It's a good link in terms of specificity (not just the dictionary term Prime minister; but on the downside the pipe conceals that specificity, and it's bunched; I think it's a matter of editorial judgement, since that target will almost certainly be linked at the start of Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa. No big deal. But I must say I'd usually unlink President of the United States, since I'd rather they clicked on the person's name and got there that way. On the hanging dash, I'm leaning towards a change to mere correction of "2001-present", 2001 – present", "2001–Present" to the correct "2001–present". But I'd much rather "Since 2001". Tony (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. I'd forgotten about the two consecutive links. One thing I have noticed recently is that more editors will make [[redirect]] to [[target|redirect]] edit as their only edit to the article. I will change the redirects to pipe them but only if I'm doing something else in the article as per the WP:Redirect guide. My concern was more with the blue links changing to red. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply
        • As Tony said, that was an unanticipated false positive from removing the "present" – I happen to agree with him that it's actually a bad formulation which is unfortunately ver prevalent, but the scrip has now been patched. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:38, 9 July 2013 (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.

Arthur Numan ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hamilton
Billy Hume ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Livingston
Tommy McLaren ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Livingston

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

More surveillance news

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2013 mass surveillance scandal#Expand title and scope in light of WaPo stories. I'm contacting you because of your substantial contributions to the articles related to Edward Snowden. Nstrauss ( talk) 20:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi

When you got the time please check out the refs on Marie Lehmann, Jenny Strömstedt , Jasmine Kara, Anna Herdenstam, Amelia Adamo and Elisabet Höglund. Much appreciated. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you!-- BabbaQ ( talk) 14:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Could you take a new look at Elisabet Höglund, I am not good at combining refs. And while you are at it please take a look at Kim Kärnfalk and Nina Inhammar. Much appreciated.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you again!.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply
When you got the time take a look at the refs for Disappearance of Andy Puglisi. Thank you.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I brought it to DRN

Some user I've never encountered before undid my MOS edit so I am bringing it to DRN. The definition of "intrinsic" is "essential" in this case. I am tired of this issue. This issue should be easy to resolve and help in showing consensus. If it is just Deb and me, nothing will change. If Deb refuses DRN, what do I do? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File permission problem with File:Roksan-xerxes-20-plus-contre-platine.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Roksan-xerxes-20-plus-contre-platine.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File permission problem with File:Xerxes20plus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Xerxes20plus.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • @ Sfan00 IMG: please go to the link concerned, click on the image gallery at the bottom of the page. When the respective images appear in pop-up windows, the mention "free licence" is clearly in the bottom right corner, so it seems pretty clear although "GFDL" isn't mentioned. However, I have actually emailed the contact address for clarification, but have not received a reply so far. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Quick issue

I screwed this one up. [10] I didn't catch this sadly; I even looked at it and hit okay. Is there a way to prevent me from hitting on this ever again? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 20:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Ugh! Not a huge cock-up. It probably explains why it's the only "&nbsp;" is there. I was probably the one to put it there months ago to protect such instances, before my script protected these date instances. I was not sure what AWB protected, but it's obvious now that it doesn't protect within quote marks embedded in refs. maybe GB might have a suggestion how to deal with these... --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply
You may want to see if using {{ cite news}} for that reference would help. Good luck! GoingBatty ( talk) 01:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Hmm. In this particular case the article doesn't use citation templates, so there seems little justification to put one there, per WP:CITE. But ideally there should be a script-specific mechanism where such instances in other articles are not converted. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Use dmy dates

Can you please explain this edit? There is nothing to retain, as a glance at the previous edit history would show. It is mindless cluttter. It is not helpful to building an encyclopedia. The article in question has no d's or m's to order carefullyl in one direction or the other. As far as I can see this is just a pissing contest to mark as many articles as possible, with no actual use. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  • With all due respect to you excellent efforts in WP, you seem to fail to understand how the overall aims of what the project, and how they are to be achieved. The templates may appear to be clutter, but it's not "mindless clutter" as you state because they are there for a reason. As I explained on Dl2000's talk page, it's ultimately within the project's stated aim to ensure all WP articles have consistent dates. Templating is a necessary and inevitable part of that work by ensuring completeness of the effort, barring changes in the way we handle dates on WP. In any event, like many other articles, even though the article doesn't have any dates at present, it doesn't preclude that it will one day have dates. But there's no pleasing everyone. You may be please to know I won't be reverting you again. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Dates

Please switch the date format on The Dresden Dolls back to mdy. Thank you. Alexius Horatius 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, your change last February was incorrect, both per WP:RETAIN and per the fact that they are/were an Americam band. Please fix. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:AFCH integration of formatgeneral

Hi Ohconfucius,

I'm rethinking about integrating your script in AFCH, so that an article gets automatically cleaned up by your script after declining or accepting any submission. Is it possible, that you transform your script a bit so that I can put any string in your function and get the transformed text back? AUTOED is handling that way, see Wikipedia:AutoEd/templates.js for instance what I do mean. I believe many cleanup functions are already integrated in the full autoed "library", but that won't hurt. mabdul 13:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

IHH to İHH

I've started a debate on a requested move from IHH to İHH, since I think diacritics should be used the article name for this Turkish NGO in line with Wikipedia rules. The previous debate resulted in a draw, some people argued that İHH's English website used the name without diacritics, but other articles like Agnieszka Radwańska use diacritics contrary to spellings in their websites. I see Ana Ivanović's name has been changed, but I don't agree with it. Anyways, you're free to comment on /info/en/?search=Talk:IHH_(Turkish_NGO)#Requested_move_3 Kavas ( talk) 18:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Ohconfucius/archive27&oldid=1144428709"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE