Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BracketBot (talk | contribs) at 08:45, 19 March 2014 (Bot: Notice of potential markup breaking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 ... Unit symbols: figures Unit symbols/abbreviations are preceded by figures, not by spelled-out numbers. Incorrect: five miles (eight km) Correct: five miles (8 km) Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

Template:Did you know nominations/Amash-Conyers Amendment

Ohconfucius, has the primary source issue you raised on this review been settled? Since you raised it, I thought you should be given the opportunity to say whether you think it has been addressed. If you aren't interested, then I'll call for a new reviewer to do a final check. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dewey Decimal Classification

Hello! Your submission of Dewey Decimal Classification at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Refs

Dear Con Could you pleeas chevk refs for

• Neville Chamberlain page
• Joseph Chamberlain page
• Martineau family page
• Elizabeth Jesser Reid page
• Unitarianism page

Thanks so much - I have tried but still am not sure Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.0.40 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Mike, I think I've dealt with the first three without query or problem. However, the ref in the Jesser article seems a bit complex and I can't work out which piece is the exact one to cite from. You need to mention that one specifically and remove the other ones not referred to (there are too many letters). For the Unitarism article, again, it's unclear because the work is so long and I cannot establish which section or page it needs to point to. Ideally you need the chapter name or the page number, use "|chapter=" or "|page=" within the citation template as appropriate. Regards, -- Ohc  15:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Kunming attack

Hi there, I'm writing to you because of your past involvement with the Urumqi riots in 2009. There was a major knife attack in Kunming. Death toll somewhere between 29 and 34, about 140 injuries as of most recent reports. It's looking likely that the attack is associated with the Uyghur independence movement although the situation is obviously cloudy. Editors with experience working on Han / Uyghur conflict would be appreciated to make sure we stick to WP:RS and avoid WP:RECENTISM while this situation unfolds. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

List of twin towns and sister cities in China

Why not organise by province, or, at the very least, except for the four municipalities, add the province/region to the header? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 04:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• All I did was to make sure the lists were at least up to date with the content ejected from the city articles, but your suggestion might not be a bad idea at all. -- Ohc  04:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Disunity?

Greets... wonder if you also see a bit of a drift pattern? e.g. Dl2000 (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Dewey Decimal Classification

On 6 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dewey Decimal Classification, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that before Dewey Decimal Classification (inventor pictured), books in most U.S. libraries were arranged by height and order of acquisition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dewey Decimal Classification. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Scripts

Would it be possible to tell me how to use your scripts. I'd like to change an article from dmy to mdy, as it is US-based. (For what it's worth, I would remove your YYYY-MM-DD code, if possible, as it is being used, potentially correctly, in the access dates.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please code your reply so I would be notified, as I don't often check your user page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I got it to work, after reloading the browser a few times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Arthur Rubin:I'm sorry I missed your message, but I'm pleased you got the script to work in the end. Some users have had difficulty loading the script for reasons I cannot understand, but usually get it working after some perseverance. If there's any important detail that I omitted from the script documentation, I'd be happy to elaborate. Regards, -- Ohc  01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Publisher

Hey—I saw that you removed a few params of publisher data in your The Verge edit, but it didn't appear necessary per the linked rules at Help:Citation_Style_1#Work_and_publisher. What's your line of logic? czar ♔ 21:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm guilty for oversimplifying my edit summary. In fact, Template:Citation#Publisher advises: "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals." So that is the rationale behind removal of publishers. regards, -- Ohc  03:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation of that quoted line is to not mistake the "publisher" field for the "work" field. Maybe I should have specified, I'm only asking about the last four changes from that diff (line 113+) czar ♔ 04:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Czar: I think it's pretty clear if you read the instruction as an entire block and not as separate sentences that "Publisher... Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals" means not to put "The Times" into |publisher=, and not to fill in the field when the source is a periodical (such as The Times).

  The four changes from that diff (line 113+) show removal of "|publisher=]", "|publisher=]" and "|publisher=|publisher=]", and I think these are in line with the instructions. The first may not have been that obvious, but Time Inc is pretty obvious. I missed out "|publisher=]" because my script operates on "opt in" basis, and that string is not yet recognised for removal. Cheers, -- Ohc  08:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how the first paragraph connects to the second. It's my understanding that the periodical's publisher is also listed under that field. Anyway, I brought it to Template talk:Citation#Periodicals and the publisher param  czar ♔ 00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Helen Fraser (feminist)

Hi, I have just been informed by a bot that there had been a discussion about an article that I had created at Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Fraser (feminist) because of a particular fact that I included. It was nice to have been informed of this and it would have been nicer to have been informed of this before the discussion had been closed and a decision reached. We might want to look at a bot that could do that. Graemp (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Con I am at it again and hopeless please check refs for 1) "Joseph Chamberlain" page 2) "Rise of Neville Chamberlain" page

THanks so much again Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.160.57 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

could you check my refs please for the unitarianism page Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.160.57 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR at 2014 Kunming attack

As noted in my edit summary for the edit that immediately preceded yours, the 2014 Kunming attack article was primarily using "-ize" variants until your edit (3 out of 4 spellings that I noticed). What is your justification for establishing non-Oxford ("-ise") British English as the selected spelling convention for that article? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've been editing the article for a while without noticing the spellings of the content until you changed the s words into z words. I see plenty of editors drive by and flip them so it was a swift reaction on my part for which I apologize. ;-) -- Ohc  04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the deference. I only changed the spelling of one word, as I disliked the inconsistency of 's' versus 'z' variants and only found one exception. I hadn't noticed 'rumors' and 'counseling', which seem American. Do you have an idea whether American or British is more appropriate for that article? (e.g., does the English press in China use one style consistently?) —BarrelProof (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I noticed that Xinhua and the other Chinese press seem to most often use American spellings and Americanisms (I don't know what code the govt uses), which us why I didn't pay much attention to the spellings. It very much depends on the editors of any given article as China doesn't use English much, and when it does it isn't natively. Articles I create where the subject is Chinese always use British English. ;-) -- Ohc  05:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK

You are right - should've gone with the monkey image (there was another illustrated item where I thought the image might be a little too tangentally related). Still, it's a good hook, and I think your new image saves its picture status. There's few enough prominent women sportsmen around, at least in team sports, so I wanted to include her.

And, y'know, I have a DYK nom. I figured that if I want someone to promote mine, step 1 is to not be a hypocrite and expect others to do what I won't. =) Adam Cuerden 03:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll split prep 4. Speaking of which, how far back can I take from? Is it alrght to grab the bits suggested for promotion from further back? Adam Cuerden 03:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about your question. But there's no limit on how old or new, provided it's been approved and not already promoted and published on the MP. And subject to the limitation that it isn't one that you have written or reviewed. Cheers, -- Ohc  03:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. Prep area 4's fixed, then. I don't suppose you're an admin? Might be nice to clear out the prep areas by adding them to the queue. Adam Cuerden 03:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good work, thanks. I'm no admin. And for some reason, only one queue ever gets filled at any point in time, but there isn't a backlog to worry about. If anything, there are usually not enough hooks to fill the areas. -- Ohc  04:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It didn't seem that hard, frankly. Adam Cuerden 04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"seems to contradict"

re:

Yes I agree it is a usual lawyerspeak, but by objection was not to phrasing, but to the statements themselves, which "seem to be unreferenced" :-) - Altenmann >t 06:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• OK. But it is referenced. -- Ohc  06:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No. YOu were not reading carefully. The reference is to a Weller 's article, but a wikipedian peppered the text with phrases "seems to contraditc Weller 's opinion". - Altenmann >t 07:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Hi there,

Thanks for all your diligent work on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Please be careful with edit conflicts though, particularly given the high rate of edits on that article. Your edit reverted my edit to insert spaced en dashes in place of hyphens in the "See also" section — unintentional, I'm sure. I've accidentally reverted my own changes, too, so I've become extra aware to exit the edit window and start again when I get an edit conflict message to avoid undoing someone else's (or my own!) good work by accident. A glitch in the matrix, I guess.

Thanks again! —sroc 💬 08:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that the techies' fixes over the last few days generate edit conflicts now where they never existed before. It's irritating. I noticed the change and was going to go back and fix it, but you beat me. Regards, -- Ohc  08:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight 370

IMHO, the higher figure seems more likely. Divide the number of hours by the age in years and you'll see why. Bearing in mind that this is a long-haul aircraft. Mjroots2 (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Mjroots2:You might be right. I'm no aviation fan or expert, but I guess the situation is so bad that the airline put out figures that are half of the true figure by pulling the wrong logs. And perhaps when figures are this far apart, they warrant both being mentioned? -- Ohc  09:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Have a cup of coffee...

...and Cheers! from Oz.

I don't normally involve myself in hot-topic new articles, is it always like this? So much edit warring, so many edit conflicts, so much squabbling over single words; I am beginning to think the article should be page-protected from all of us, not just the IPs. YSSYguy (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• @YSSYguy: Thanks/Yes, it's always like this. Edit warring and all goes with the territory. You should check out the Ukraine articles. It's at least ten degrees hotter in that kitchen. Here, trouble here is that there are so many sources and some are wrong. Editors each armed with different sources tend to believe theirs is right. Only, my impression is that, since the techies tweaked the Mediawiki software, I'm getting edit conflicts where they did not occur before. -- Ohc  09:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

According to one of my apparently-pubescent fellow citizens you are high; how many cups of coffee have you had? :-) Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hooked on the stuff. I have to have at least two measures of coffee a day... ;-) -- Ohc  08:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In reality I am 16, so you were a few years off :) TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@AG Even more reason not to use the word 'son' then. I figured out years ago that you are a kid, after this edit.

@OC A girlfriend of mine 20-25 years ago used to have about 8 cups a day, black, no sugar; I can only drink the stuff if it doesn't taste like coffee....feel free to pour me a glass of wine though. Cheers (pun intended) YSSYguy (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I know this guy.... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hoho! -- Ohc  10:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Repetition?

In Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the statement that Indonesian and NZ navy focussed their search in Malacca strait only mentioned once and it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. How come you think it is a repetition? Stop reverting and pushing your edit. Gunkarta  talk  13:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• The first mention I removed twice1 2, to be reinstated by you twice. I attempt to remove the second occurrence, and you object again. Please compare 1 and 3. They are different occurrences of the same information. But the article will survive without that detail because we don't have any such info for the other assets. Keep one, but not both. I actually prefer keeping 1. Your call. -- Ohc  13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Snake price.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Snake price.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The word 'country'

Hello Ohconfucius I noted that you have commented on Hong Kong's status at the talk page of MH370. Would you be interested to take a look at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems, Talk:List of metro systems and Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world too, as well as the recent edit history of World's busiest airports by passenger traffic? Thanks. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think all it is is a problem with IJBall, and the only word I can use to describe this editor is "rabid". -- Ohc  14:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you've read other talk pages, u can tell (s)he's not alone. People like him/her are everywhere on Misplaced Pages. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't help nor am I prepared to educate or argue with people like this who have have personal issues. They seem to have a binary view of the world and cannot accept shades of grey that exist because of diplomatic necessity and political expedience. -- Ohc  14:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But it's become such a worst situation that most editors believe that countries ≡ sovereign states, and actively 'correcting' cases like Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, all around Misplaced Pages. Any chance to hardcode how (inhabited) dependencies should be treated as a Misplaced Pages policy? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Brasdhonneur.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brasdhonneur.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Knife attack on Kevin Lau

On 13 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Knife attack on Kevin Lau, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kevin Lau was violently assaulted just one week after Hong Kong journalists rallied for press freedom and against his removal as editor of the Ming Pao? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Knife attack on Kevin Lau. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 01:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

MH370

Dude are you high or something. You have no respect for the people involved, what a disgrace TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• The move was a commercial necessary. There's no need to take the airline's spin verbatim. Nobody from China or indeed anywhere in Asia (and probably many other superstitious people in the world) will ever get on a "MH370" ever ever ever ever again. -- Ohc  08:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

??? TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Respect had zip to do with it. The airline just had to change it and put the best spin on it. I'm OK with it so long as it says "the airline says" or words to that effect. -- Ohc  08:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok good TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah-chooo!! jeez... something stuck in my nose there for a minute! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Con, I got the "retrieved" date incorrect on the Harriet Martineau page on a ref. I just did - it should be March 2014 - not 2013! Could you please fix it Thanks so much mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.22.207 (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"NTSB was said to have confirmed Malaysian military radar records indicating that the aircraft had diverted to the west, back across the Malay Peninsula"

Nowhere in your edit summaries or on the Talk page have you explained what your objection is to this such that you removed it (and replaced it with that highly suspect oil rig worker sighting). I have invited to you to outline your specific objections on the article Talk page and you have refused to do so. I invite you do to so here. You dispute "Sources close to the investigation tells CBS News that the NTSB has validated the Malaysian military radar records..." do you? You've got inside information proving that the NTSB has not validated anything? You don't think it is notable if we have confirmation the aircraft "diverted to the west, back across the Malay Peninsula"? I should think it quite notable if a reliable source says the aircraft is unlikely to be found over the sea it disappeared!--Brian Dell (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• We write in summary style, in particular for the lead. That NTSB confirmation is already in the body, so it's good enough. we really ought to keep the lead lean and mean. -- Ohc  03:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not "already in the body." Why didn't you move this text into the body if you are not just winging it here, coming up with whatever excuse you can on the fly for your repeated efforts to undermine and/or discredit anything sourced to someone in the U.S. government? You want the lede "lean and mean" but have time to waste space on alien abduction! I should think if we've got NTSB confirmation that the plane went west of Malaysia that's notable and can be stated quickly. What are you going to do if/when the NTSB publishes its final report? Ignore it as "unproven conclusions"? Because you cannot understand the difference between the NTSB and some guy standing on an oil rig?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's not an excuse, and I regret that you think it. I assumed that you would have put it there. It's one of the fundamental precepts that the lead should summarise the content that is already in the body, and I kind of assumed that you were a seasoned editor that would have done that rather than merely parachute it into the lead without mentioning it in the body. I saw that a huge paragraph that sprung up overnight which I only scanned, and I though it was all covered. It's no big deal to put the detail of the NTSB there, and I will, once I've finished doing what I'm doing now on another section. -- Ohc  04:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't tell me that you assume it is in the body of the article. You said it's there. It isn't, just like this plane isn't in the Gulf of Thailand. You make claims evidently without caring to verify them, something I find profoundly ironic when you so stubbornly resist the U.S. government-related reports on the grounds of insufficient verification. It seems to me that our basic problem is your inability to get your facts right, and this extends to your inability to distinguish a reliable report about what has happened to the aircraft from an unreliable report.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll say for the nth time that reliability of the claim isn't the issue. It's probably as reliable as claims go and probably more reliable than any other claim that's ever been made so far regarding this flight, but that's irrelevant.

You're upset at me for fighting you on this, that I can understand, but I assure you it's not personal, and it's not an anti American bias. I fought against the Chinese satellite storyline and now I'm fighting against this, the latest fashion. But anyway, I had another look at the body, and it is there. There's the White House announcement, and all that's missing is the specific mention of the NTSB, and if that's all you're upset about, then the problem is chez toi, mon ami. We're all editing it together, so don't blame me if you're too busy trying to scoop the lead thus neglecting to put your "important detail" in the body. I would have said the detail was sufficient although it didn't tie up with what you had in the lead. I'm well entitled to making the assumption I did bearing in mind the conventions guiding our editing. Please cut your rhetoric about me lying or not getting the facts right. You're not a novice, and you should stop behaving like one. -- Ohc  06:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"The latest fashion," is it? Because when organizations like the Wall St Journal, ABC News, or Reuters have their own investigative reporters dig something up, they are just being "fashionable"? What you seem to be unable, or more likely unwilling, to understand is that there is a difference between a media outlet noting that some third party has claimed such-and-such and an investigative reporting organization like Reuters having their OWN reporter discover something by contacting sources in a position to know and then reporting that previously undisclosed information. That Chinese satellite stuff was already online and required no investigative reporting at all to repeat, and more importantly investigative reporting was not, in fact, even possible as the source was not available for questioning. I'll cease to complain about your failure to get your facts right when you start getting them right and stop declaring that you are "well entitled" to making false assumptions. "all that's missing is the specific mention of the NTSB" is NOT true. Do you see the word "confirmed" in "confirmed Malaysian military radar records indicating that the aircraft had diverted to the west, back across the Malay Peninsula"? Where in the article is this confirmation noted? As the Washington Post pointed out, the White House announcement does not refer to the radar data. What's missing here is the fact that radar reports that the aircraft flew west over the peninsula which first appeared in the body of the article some time ago have subsequently had significant confirmation and accordingly should be elevated to the lede. This is not a one off report from CBS. Reuters' own investigative report backs up the contention that we've got radar records indicating this plane flew west. As for your "acting like a novice" name calling, I'll set that aside in order to simply remind you that Misplaced Pages is governed by policies, policies like WP:V, WP;RS, and let's not forget WP:SYNTH, policies which you have conspicuously avoided mentioning in your campaign to discredit this material as "the latest fashion."--Brian Dell (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction notification

This is to notify you that the arbitration committee authorized discretionary sanctions for article titles and capitalization. NE Ent 18:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• @NE Ent: WTF? Please could you explain what's going on, and why did you drop me notification out of the blue??? These sanctions have been in force for two years, and there is nothing new that I am aware of. -- Ohc  19:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's in response to the discussion at ANI. NE Ent 20:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines

I reserve my right to revert. Don't post bullshit on my talk page.--Bazaan (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Then you reserve the right for someone to block you. Please don't post bullshit on my talk page either. -- Ohc  04:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the matter to the talk page. It was you who was edit warring and tried to harass me with warnings that are absolutely uncalled for. I hope you do get blocked someday. Take care.--Bazaan (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

MH370 again

I don't want to get into an edit war so won't revert. But I don't understand why you feel that the fact that the pilots had not asked to fly together is not important. First, this was something announced at an official press conference and the Malaysians have been very careful to avoid all speculation. Second, if the fact that the police have visited the homes of the pilots is relevant, I don't see that this point isn't. Roundtheworld (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Roundtheworld: The article is awash with speculation and hypotheses, and I just thought not everything that is said is relevant, and I don't see how that's an important element at this point. The pilots should have been an avenue of investigation from the start, and the airline should have vetting procedures in place and procedures to rotate their staff. Nobody agreed on putting in the details about Fariq inviting sexy chicks into the cockpit, and I think these details ought to be left out until something more concrete is available. It's not a small detail that I feel strongly about, no major principles are involved. And as it doesn't threaten to overwhelm the article like the list of assets does, you may put it back and I won't remove it again. Regards, -- Ohc  13:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please keep WP:3RR in mind, 3 reverts is not a right, and editors have been blocked for less. I don't want that to happen to you. Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I'm using this thread because I'm lazy and because I don't think there's a need for a new section; anyhoooo.... do you feel like taking care of this? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

no worries. it takes me around ten seconds to zap them with my script.  Ohc  10:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein ANI

Hi, OhC, I have refactored some of the discussion after a remark by Sandstein about text length, to keep the votes and discussion more separated. I tried to choose the most representative and neutral of your comments to add to your !vote, and to keep the vote comments at around 1 or 2 lines. I hope I have not misrepresented your views, if not feel free to tweak. Cheers, —Neotarf (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Con, a small bit of help needed RE refs. Please check the pages Martineau family and Harriet Martineau You are alwyas helpful Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.69.75 (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look

Please have a look here, at Brians' comment in particular. Talk:MH370#Pilot wears anti-government slogan t-shirt. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 12

Just what is so special about this date that we need it in the lede, in the form of "three days" prior to March 15? There are currently four sources cited for the clause. NONE of them support a March 12 date. I'd raise this on the article Talk page, except that I think this is idiosyncratic to you and your unwillingness to respond to everything I pointed out in the "Plane flew past three military radar installations undetected" section (including "AFTER MUCH FORENSIC WORK AND DELIBERATION, THE FAA, NTSB, AAIB AND THE MALAYSIAN AUTHORITIES, working separately on the same data, CONCUR) and instead continue to try and insinuate that "Investigators believe..." is somehow false.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• You're the one who's forcing one hot theory after another. If you want it in, you need to accept that they are related. What you write above is too detailed for the lead. The first US source that leaked the information about the four hourly pings is dated 12 March. The info was discretely leaked so that the Malaysians would find it to refocus their search and at least have a semblance of a claim that all the evidence was beginning to point that way. Malaysia announced it on 15 March. Cause–effect–datestamp. QED. -- Ohc  03:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean it's your "hot theory" that the points on which the U.S., British, and Malaysian authorities have all concurred on is a "hot theory." It is pure speculation on your part that the WSJ author received his information on March 12, and even if he did, the other sources cited have different dates and different sources. "The info was discretely leaked so that the Malaysians would find it to refocus their search" and you accuse ME of generating theories? You need to take your "QED" over to WP:SYNTH for a refresher, compadre.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not synthesis, and certainly no more speculative than what's been going on in the article. A friend of Uncle Sam says "look over there...", some time later, Najib turns around and says: "look what I found!". See "US flies high in search fiasco". -- Ohc  03:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You know what, change the over-specific "three days" to "shortly" or something like that and I'd let this go. I still think it's very close to WP:SYNTH because we don't have a clear source (the Hong Kong piece is good but opinion-piece-ish) for the joining but it seems that this time you have actually tried to write the narrative and look at the sources from a holistic perspective. If you wanna connect the dots like this, I really should be saying 'atta boy" for trying to construct for once instead of obstructing. And I think you are indeed on to something with your theory here. And because you haven't rejected the possibility of "compadre" status.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And I will apologize for my tone earlier in this thread. My knee jerk reaction was that of course you were going to come along and change the lede sometime today simply because you could not resist fighting me one more time. So when you told me here you had something else in mind you left me surprised and a bit confused. So I am in fact rather pleased at your unpredictability.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL. And your gracious apology is accepted. You're right that the Standard piece is its editorial today, but it's on the nail here. I'll make the change you suggested in the course of my further edits. Regards, -- Ohc  03:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Slate magazine

Hi. Was your addition giving a quote from Slate discussed on the Talk Page? This strikes me as political comment that does not really belong here. It is one thing to criticise the investigation, another to criticise the government. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, it was a bold move on may part. Sure, we can discuss it. The handling is becoming a serious political matter. Look already at the politicking going on: Air Force Chief told to withdraw his comment, which the PM later had to acknowledge following pointers from the US. Scathing criticism from China; their politicians contradicting each other; then the attempt at smearing Zaharie, etc... -- Ohc  10:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's unacceptable

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=599823210&oldid=599823181

Please don't unilaterally collapse my comments on a noticeboard page like that ever again with your own evaluation of their worth - certainly not in a discussion in which you are implicitly involved. That is all. Good day. Begoon  16:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Griffith College Dublin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. 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:

• {{Infobox university
• * LLB (Hons( in Irish Law

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)