This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matt Lewis (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 14 February 2010 (→Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:28, 14 February 2010 by Matt Lewis (talk | contribs) (→Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff).svg)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
_(cropped).jpg)
 | 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 27 days. |
| Another styletip ...
Incorrect: Contrary to popular belief, aardvarks are NOT the same as anteaters. Correct: Contrary to popular belief, aardvarks are not the same as anteaters.
Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}} |
 |
|
New intro in FG-verse
I know you said that you wanted to distance yourself from the subject for a while, but I have just comprehensively re-written a new intro on Falun Gong. If you have a bit of time please just have one quick look to copyedit and proofread to make sure I have everything right. Thanks! Colipon+(Talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I feel I really need to stay away for a while longer, if you don't mind. Ohconfucius 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
DAB links
Please avoid converting direct links (such as Kent County, Rhode Island) into links to disambiguation pages (such as Kent County). Instead, consider piping the link (as ]) to achieve the desired result without rendering the link less useful. Oddly, you're the second experienced editor this week to make this specific edit to the WLKW article. - Dravecky (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. It was my mistake, my eyes were blurred. ;-) You will have noticed that the other similar links I changed to ]. Ohconfucius 14:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Edna Parker and year links
I thought you and the others agreed to leave the status quo as-is until the discussion was decided?
Further, your "final warning" is very flawed and reflective of you, not me. I did NOT revert edits three times in a 24-hour period, so that is a false charge. Further, it is a conflict of interest for you to be both involved in the matter as a point of discussion AND also as a point of enforcing "penalties." In short, it's like trying to win a chess game by knocking the pieces off the board. Cyber-bullying and threats to block are NOT productive and NOT good arguments, either. Far from a WIKI-LAWYERING accusation, it seemed an acceptable and reasonable compromise to link the sentence in the Jiroemon Kimura article directly to the year 1897, rather than his year-of-birth/year-of-death listing at the top. However, it seems to me that you are more interested in "winning" than being fair, more interested in bullying than being reasonable. As such, I will take this matter to higher authorities.Ryoung122 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, you do that. I don't have any conflict of interest. I'm just interested in ensuring style guidelines are enforced - which is either obligatory or recommended practice. Ohconfucius 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- RYoung122's actions in this sorry mess have been deplorable. He edited against community consensus; he deleted guidelines because they didn't suit him (that's right RYoung122: why delete parts of the guideline if you really believed you were editing within them?); he reverted bot edits (bots that he knew full-well were sanctioned, and would only run if they arrose from community consensus); he warred over those edits; he accused people of canvassing, but did exactly the same thing; he shouted at people via his edits; he accused editors of cabal-like activity; etc. Please—bring on scrutiny of this atrocious episode. HWV258. 03:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Signature
I hearby trout you for using a font similar to Comic Sans in your signature. That is all. 
— Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Gosh! I didn't realise it was a troutable offence! I copied your shadow, but needed to differentiate in view of the shadow's increasing popularity with other editors. ;-) Ohconfucius 03:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose if you have an arguable reason for this offence I'll have to let it slide. Still, be careful in your search for individuality...you may find it slides even *further* away! ;D — Huntster (t @ c) 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- LOL Ohconfucius 04:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- The quest for individuality via a signature that is "different" is disturbing. HWV258. 04:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure that what you do marks you out, but it doesn't stop corporations spending millions each year on logos and corporate imaging. Ohconfucius 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was just having a shot at myself for spending so long to find a way to get the dot after my username to blink (although it doesn't blink in all browsers). HWV258. 04:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's very subtle and easily missed. Ohconfucius 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unlike me. HWV258. 04:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Confucius, why are you talking to yourself? — Huntster (t @ c) 05:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Must be my age. You can trout me once more if you catch me doing it again. ;-) Ohconfucius 05:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's very subtle and easily missed. Ohconfucius 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was just having a shot at myself for spending so long to find a way to get the dot after my username to blink (although it doesn't blink in all browsers). HWV258. 04:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure that what you do marks you out, but it doesn't stop corporations spending millions each year on logos and corporate imaging. Ohconfucius 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose if you have an arguable reason for this offence I'll have to let it slide. Still, be careful in your search for individuality...you may find it slides even *further* away! ;D — Huntster (t @ c) 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
SilkTork * 10:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hong Kong
Hello ! I have nominated this article : Hong Kong for FAR. Can you give your opinion here : Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive2. Thanks. Toutvientapoint (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Akmal Shaikh
Hi. I have put the GA Review on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues detailed on Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1 to be addressed. Any questions please get in touch. SilkTork * 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Ohconfucius,
Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.
You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
- Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
- As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
- Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
- Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
- Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
- Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
- Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
- In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
- Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,