Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:27, 28 November 2008

This user is a native of Hong Kong.

This user is a citizen of the United Kingdom.

This user lives in France.

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, 11 months and 26 days.

Another styletip ... Circa To indicate approximately, the unitalicized abbreviation of the Latin word circa (c., followed by a space) is preferred over circa, ca., or approx. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

Archives

Jan 2008 to Jun 2008 Jul 2008 to 20 Nov 2008 21 Nov 2008 to 15 Dec 2008

AstraZeneca

Hello Ohconfucius! Thanks for removing the redundant links in AstraZeneca. I agree that the text contained too much links, but the links in the Products section were quite useful. For example, people who want to go to Esomeprazole from here will have a hard time finding the link in the next section. This quote from WP:MOSLINK seems to be relevant here:

"The purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at a point where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to a need for more information; this is usually on the first occurrence of the term, although the subsequent linking of an important item distant from its previous occurrence in an article may occasionally be appropriate in a table or in a subsection to which readers may jump directly, " (my highlighting) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RR

Sorry, I forgot to check back. A direct URL to the court document is here. It's a pdf, so you need to have Acrobat Reader installed. Cheers, Jayen466 13:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on previous warning about delinking dates

I invite you to have a look at this edit warring case. Edits like the one you made with your Ohconfucius account to the Jacco Eltingh, Secretary-General of the United Nations, AstraZeneca, and Baidu articles violate the previous warning and are inconsistent with the result of the edit warring case. Edits like the one you made with your Date delinker account to the Nancye Wynne Bolton article also violate the previous warning and are inconsistent with the result of the edit warring case. Continuing these kinds of edits despite the warning and the edit warring case could land you here. Tennis expert (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are deleting links in conflict with the style guidelines and consensus

You are using your Date delinker account to delete links in a section of an article if those links exist in an earlier section of that article. You also are deleting links in a table of an article if those links exist in an earlier section or table of that article. See, for example, your massive edits to the Billie Jean King article. Your deletions are in conflict with the relevant style guideline, which states, "A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)" Your deletions also are in conflict with the overwhelming consensus for linking in tennis-related articles, which is that links should appear once in each section and once in each table. Please stop making these deletions without prior discussion. Tennis expert (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it a ghost, or has he really returned from the dead? Ohconfucious, threatening, bullying messages from someone who is causing so much disruption to pedal his own pet peeves should be simply ignored. Tony (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• You can see I'm quaking so much in my boots that I only managed to clean up 508 overlinked articles today, compared with 350 on 12 November. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR and such

Hey! Discussion here on your bot and 3RR. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I have added my comments there. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification regarding MOS modifications

As a courtesy notice, and because this issue has cropped up at AN, ANI, 3RR/EW repeatedly, any editor that is involved in the process of date-delinking and -linking will be subject to a block by an administrator. There is a draft RFC regarding this issue, and you are encouraged to participate in the discussion. This message applies to all that have been involved with the recent discussions and reports at the noticeboards above, and this message will be repeated on the respective user talk pages. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it regrettable and lamentable - To grant what is effectively an injunction to delinking is capitulation to the loud bullies. I was just doing my bit to tidy up WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as you don't continue disputed behaviour all is well. When the RfC is over then we'll see what goes down. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 09:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Acting in extremely dubious good faith, they are disputing everything I am doing and harassing me across WP. My doing anything at all is falling into the very broad interpretation of "carrying on disputed behaviour", isn't it? ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Hi, just a note that you were mentioned here. Dengero (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Ohconfucius (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The RfC on dates

Sorry, but your comment ("sabotage") is highly inappropriate. Tony completely ignores an aspect of the dispute that directly affects the RfC, then attempts to bury that information far away from the proposals, and Locke is the one who is "sabotaging" things? Come on. --Ckatz_spy 10:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Makes no sense: what's your message got to do with "Is" vs. "Was"? Ohconfucius (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • After these three edits, you might also want to read Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Wanna cry? So sue me! Ohconfucius (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Your behavior is appalling and your attitude even more so. A user conduct RFC would practically write itself. Knock it off. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
        • You're the very last person on earth I expect a lecture from. Now, be helpful for a change - go forth and multiply. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is little excuse for the edit warring that you've been conducting on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Please be mindful of our policies on ], particularly the three-revert rule. If you continue to behave in this manner, you are cruising for a block. Please be careful and remember to discuss your disagreements with other editors, rather than revert warring. Best, HiDrNick! 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for reminding me. I am aware that I am at two reverts. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm, here's the "f"--I did work on this RfC, so as much as these articles can be owned, it is my RfC. And Masem is fine with it being posted now. His words from the talk page: "If people want to have this RFC go forward, all that needs to be done is to RFC-style tag it, and then pepper the announcements around. I would recommend for all fairness that both RFCs be pointed out in such announcements including the watchlist-notice (if people happen to respond to both, we can compare results and make sure there's no weird differences). I unfortunately am not going to be able to do it any time soon (read next few days), so if anyone else wants to do it, that's fine. --MASEM 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)"--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 08:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Tony1. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Note also that removing other editors comments from talk pages is considered vandalism. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours both for engaging in an edit war and for your general uncivil attitude toward other editors venturing into personal attacks. Dealing civilly and politely with other editors, including those with whom you disagree, is a requirement, not a nicety. As to removal of comments from another editor's talk page, the editor whose talk page it is may choose to remove comments at his or her discretion, but others should leave them alone. As you have chosen to violate these policies, please take a day to consider ways to improve your behavior. If you believe this block to be in error, you may contact me by email or use the {{unblock|reason here}} template on this page, which you may edit while blocked. Seraphimblade 09:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I would like to see the evidence that I have been engaged in edit-warring for which I have been blocked. (see below)

Decline reason:

You made four reverts at User talk:Tony1. Tony1's message isn't clear to me that he's giving you permission to remove what seems to be a perfectly reasonable comment. Had Tony1 been the one reverting I wouldn't have blocked him. It's one thing for 3rd parties to help "patrol" a user talk page, but quite another for them to edit war with others over it. Your edits were disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Users are allowed to remove messages from their own talk page, partly because this at least implies that they have read the message. Locke Cole has a legitimate need to communicate with Tony and you interfering with that to this extent is disruption. Block is appropriate. Mangojuice 14:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you are referring to that which took place at User talk:Tony1, here is the dispensation for me to remove unwanted remarks, and that does not excuse User:Locke Cole for edit-warring himself - he was warned too, and so perhaps deserves to be blocked more than I am. There is no justification for blocking me without meting out a similar dose to him. Furthermore, I did not engage in any edit warring after receiving the WP:3RR warning from my antagonist. The two serial stalkers/trolls/talk page spammers acting in concert in a desperate attempt to derail an on-going debate at WT:MOSNUM. I am acting under extreme provocation, but have remained as cool as I can in accordance with WP:Vandalism in removing unwanted remarks in userspace. Furthermore, this block is a black mark on my otherwise unblemished record of 3 years on WP, unlike Cole, who indulges in edit warring to further his objectives. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been around long enough to be aware of prohibitions on edit warring without needing a response. Further, the incivility in which you have engaged merits a block regardless of any "dispensation", there is no dispensation to attack other editors. I would ask you to use the time to consider and moderate your behavior in future discussions. Seraphimblade 09:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I feel this is rather trumped up. How is my behaviour "far outside the bounds of what is acceptable"? and what incivility towards him? Oh, if you mean by that calling him a troll and spammer? Very droll indeed... he's done it to me loads of times. He's better at raising a hue and cry that I am. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

DD block

I've blocked DD for 24h. You were asked to stop DD'ing pending agreement William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Whaddaya mean? I have not been date-delinking since the block. Please check the articles in my edit history for yourself. I will gladly accept the block if you can show me one article which has had any primary/prominent dates removed by me in the last 24 hours. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

. I care nothing for the prominence. Don't weasel William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? I didn't think there were any at all, but said that just to cover myself. Perhaps you were 'lucky' ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You were also using it as a sockpuppet to evade your last block, which is also unacceptable. "Blocked" means "do not edit", not "pick a different account". Seraphimblade 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop DateDelinker removing duplicate links

You have been alerted to problems with DateDelinker earlier, and I wanted to alert you to the fact that it is DAMAGING articles and removing valid information.

This change removed an intended duplicated link that connected a historic name of a group to its predecessor (described in the same article). Worse was this change, which duplicate was actually a 'see also' link earlier in the article.

I have reverted the changes to restore the articles. Please comply with the MOS and stop these arbitrary actions.

EdJogg (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Link removals were done manually. I'm sorry I removed too many links. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You are also removing links from tables in contravention of the Manual of Style concerning tables. See, for example, your Date delinker edits to the Conchita Martinez article. You should stop making these kinds of edits and fix the damage you've done already. Tennis expert (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

wikilink removal on Foster Yeoman

Hi, This morning you removed wikilinks from the Foster Yeoman article to Torr Works & Holcim and I don't understand why. The links had not been made earlier in the article & provide the reader with relevant additional information. Could you aid my editing by letting me know the rational for these edits so that I don't put them in again - if that is what any guideline says.— Rod 09:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I should only have removed one of the links to Torr Works, so that was an error. However, Holcim was already linked in the lead, so I removed it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Links in citations?

DD removed links to names of newspapers and publishers in footnotes in City of Derry Building Society diff. I reverted because I think the accepted style is to wikilink these sources, to make it easier for readers to research reliability. I certainly link them in (almost) all my citations.

What do you think?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that it may help in some cases to know and link to the journal article, as it would be helpful to know that The Epoch Times is published by Falun Gong devotees. I cannot remember precisely which ones I removed, but everyone knows the status of BBC, The Times, The Guardian. If a journal's opinion is cited, I would put that in the body of the article. I did not wich to interfere, but one link per journal in the reference section is adequate, IMHO. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)