Revision as of 15:14, 9 January 2009 editEyeSerene (talk | contribs)20,213 edits →Re User:Date delinker: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:05, 10 January 2009 edit undoLocke Cole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,892 edits →Arbitration: noticeNext edit → | ||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
*Thank you for drawing attention to the problem, Boilerplate edit summaries are indeed the norm for these types of edits, because having to tailor each summary defeats the whole purpose of the semi-automated edits. I see what you mean by the 'inccurate' or even potentially misleading summaries for those examples you gave. Of course, the principal objective was to to what was stated in the summary, however, there may be little to do in some cases, and in others, AWB will kick in and perform some of its own tidying (such as spellcheck) and other general fixes. The best I can do is to consider carefully how to make the summaries more accurate. Thanks for your understanding. ] (]) 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | *Thank you for drawing attention to the problem, Boilerplate edit summaries are indeed the norm for these types of edits, because having to tailor each summary defeats the whole purpose of the semi-automated edits. I see what you mean by the 'inccurate' or even potentially misleading summaries for those examples you gave. Of course, the principal objective was to to what was stated in the summary, however, there may be little to do in some cases, and in others, AWB will kick in and perform some of its own tidying (such as spellcheck) and other general fixes. The best I can do is to consider carefully how to make the summaries more accurate. Thanks for your understanding. ] (]) 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Thanks for your reply. It does add extra time to the operation, but the point of AWB etc is to take the tedium and effort out of making repetitive cleanup-type edits, not necessarily to do them quickly (that's a side benefit). Suggestions should still be manually checked before saving, which I don't doubt that you do, so it wouldn't take that much extra effort to delete the inapplicable section of the edit summary or to add "+ sp" or something to the end. It's not a huge deal though, and I certainly appreciate your work in doing this sort of valuable article maintenance. All the best, ]<sup>]</sup> 15:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | ::Thanks for your reply. It does add extra time to the operation, but the point of AWB etc is to take the tedium and effort out of making repetitive cleanup-type edits, not necessarily to do them quickly (that's a side benefit). Suggestions should still be manually checked before saving, which I don't doubt that you do, so it wouldn't take that much extra effort to delete the inapplicable section of the edit summary or to add "+ sp" or something to the end. It's not a huge deal though, and I certainly appreciate your work in doing this sort of valuable article maintenance. All the best, ]<sup>]</sup> 15:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
==Arbitration== | |||
I've requested arbitration over this date delinking situation and the conduct of those involved. You are named as a party. Please see ]. Thank you. —] • ] • ] 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:05, 10 January 2009
To keep all discussions coherent, I will reply on the same page where messages are left for me. If I left you a message on your talk page, you may reply there.Please click here to leave me a message on this talk page.
Thanks for stopping by.
Archives |
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 ...
Incorrect (not a proper noun): We used Digital Scanning (DS) technology Correct: We used digital scanning (DS) technology Correct (a proper noun): The film was produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}} |
stub tags
Hi Ohconfucius -
please don't add stub tags to files and images like File:Lnyfs.jpg and File:Cathouse.jpg (as you did as User:Date delinker). Only articles should be labelled as stubs - other files (templates, categories, images, etc) never are. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- noted. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Date delinker
How about adding s to dates, as well as delinking and tweaking the month-date order, so they aren't split by linebreaks?
—WWoods (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll add that to the wishlist if the author of the script I'm using. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello
OhConfucious, no barnstar from me this time, but I thought, given this, you might enjoy this outburst. Props. Eusebeus (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL. I'll keep an eye on WP:ANI and WP:WQA then. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Francosphere
Ah yes, I do the vast majority of my edits to French related articles. I've been alternating roughly between Marquis de Lafayette, Louvre, and Pied-noir. The former two I'm hoping to be able to get to FA, eventually. I am active on the French wiki, although at a much lower pace than here (generally: translation, asking our French colleagues to weigh in on article progress here, and building interwiki links).
I must say: we are always looking for people over at WP:FRANCE; I've been trying to revive the project for a few months. So, if you have any interest, consider this an invitation to join in. Also, we're getting some good momentum/collaboration at the Lafayette article right now; feel free to join in there.
I generally do not get involved in bureaucratic processes such as this; however, I am interested in the outcome here. Perhaps Tony is on to something; then again, perhaps not. If run correctly, it will be interesting to see the outcome! Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks so much for stopping by. I've, in a rather verbose manner (apologies), replied to you on the talk page. Please, do carry on with more points/criticism/improvements. Yours, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just seen it. I'm headed for some shut-eye now. Catch you around! Ohconfucius (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- As an humorous aside: Lafayette's full name uses all but 4 of the letter in the French alphabet. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Latymer Upper School
Thanks for removing that useless link. If you were looking for compromise, perhaps 1620s in England might have been a better olive branch to offer <grin>. Maybe we need articles that cover a few decades either side of a given date? I wonder if they could be generated by the software - a kind of multiple transclusion? Regards --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Dates in quotes
It appears that a few times you've removed "th" or equivlaent from dates which are verbatim quotes - these should be left in their original form. David Underdown (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to see which articles you were referring to. Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Frederick Hitch, Francis Newton Parsons amongst others, though I am yet to go through all VC recipients. There are a substantial number here. Some of your scripted edits were made inside a quote box, this should not happen, can you make sure it does not in the future? Regards, Woody (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
reorganisation of 10 August (French Revolution)
replied on my talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Flagged Revs
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Barnie
The Original Barnstar | ||
For incredible contributions to Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, the Barnstar is awarded to Ohconfucius . --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you. Oh, this is like 'payment in advance', as I had hardly done anything! I'll have to put some serious effort in! Ohconfucius (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Chinese Sturgeon
Regarding my recent addition(now moved to Ocean park Hong Kong page - sorry for that edit!) But following essential information. Is it still essential to include that 5 of the fish were given as a gift for attraction purposes? Hope you can see my reasoning. thanks --CorrectlyContentious 08:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for putting in the information. The reason most of the text was moved was because I felt it has a much greater relevance to Ocean Park, and has relatively little to do with the subject per se. The way I see it, as far as the Chinese sturgeon article is concerned, the gift is perhaps of not great importance to the preservation efforts of the sturgeon, or to the evolutionary or biological description compared with other animals. It is well known that China gives 'leaseholds' of pandas (aka Panda diplomacy); although China has not so far been equally generous universally with sturgeon, the gift of sturgeon was an important gesture on the part of the Chinese government, and the govt have said as much. Chinese believe in symbolism, so I feel the symbolic importance of the five fish, representing the Olympic rings, is certainly there; the gift may also important because of the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty. I do not believe the 5 (number) fish is important for the "attraction value", though. Hope that answers your question. See you around! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Re User:Date delinker
Just a quick note - I was wondering if you could try to avoid boilerplate edit summaries when using this account? As you'll see from the two that just popped up on my watchlist, and , the edit summary is inaccurate in both cases. I have no problem with automated or semi-automated edits, but as I'm sure you know this is the sort of thing that gets blood-pressures rising at WP:ANI when mistakes are made ;) All the best, EyeSerene 12:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for drawing attention to the problem, Boilerplate edit summaries are indeed the norm for these types of edits, because having to tailor each summary defeats the whole purpose of the semi-automated edits. I see what you mean by the 'inccurate' or even potentially misleading summaries for those examples you gave. Of course, the principal objective was to to what was stated in the summary, however, there may be little to do in some cases, and in others, AWB will kick in and perform some of its own tidying (such as spellcheck) and other general fixes. The best I can do is to consider carefully how to make the summaries more accurate. Thanks for your understanding. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. It does add extra time to the operation, but the point of AWB etc is to take the tedium and effort out of making repetitive cleanup-type edits, not necessarily to do them quickly (that's a side benefit). Suggestions should still be manually checked before saving, which I don't doubt that you do, so it wouldn't take that much extra effort to delete the inapplicable section of the edit summary or to add "+ sp" or something to the end. It's not a huge deal though, and I certainly appreciate your work in doing this sort of valuable article maintenance. All the best, EyeSerene 15:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration
I've requested arbitration over this date delinking situation and the conduct of those involved. You are named as a party. Please see here. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)