User talk:Ohc on the move

Your scripts
Can I clarify - what sort of testing are you doing on your scripts? In particular, User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources? They seem to be causing issues - see this edit and this edit, which broke the references and had to be rolled back. Of course, when the broken references were reverted, it reverted all the other changes - changes you were asked some time ago to split out into different edits. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two scripts: a test version and a production version. I run the test script almost exclusively, and Tony is my co-beta tester. New features are first tested before being ported to the production script after a suitable period; errors in the production script are corrected with a much reduced delay. Although the script are split by functionality, I personally run them together for productivity reasons, otherwise there is the risk of making inconsequential edits (which are frowned upon). Tony does likewise.--Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What sort of inconsequential edits are you referring to? It would be best to split up the functionality into seperate commits. That way it can be reverted more easily when necessary. It does sound like you need a sandbox with test input. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An inconsequential edit can occur for example when I the MOSNUM script finds no changes except for updating the maintenance date parameter of the use dmy dates template. The scripts have been extensively tested for the most part because I wrote them several years ago; others have helped me refine them, and I am usually swift in acting on error reports. I run the scripts as a composite as there are generally very low error rates with the MOSNUM, formatting and Common Terms scripts; there is the occasional issue with the ENGVAR script because of the widespread and increasing use of terms like "color" within templates (and I always run it separately for a number of reasons); the Sources script is perhaps the most complex (but there's always something for it to fix) and I keep a close eye on the output. I assume that Tony has the same level of awareness of the issues involved. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are as careful as you think you are. In fact, I'm fairly certain that at some point in the past you have been told about replacing aliases. What I am suggesting is twofold - firstly, separate out trickier scripts into seperate edits for your more reasonable and solid scripts. And second, find the times where your script does fail and put it onto a test script sandbox, then when you release a new script you run it on this. I'd be happy to do this myself if you would like, I would only need to know when you have made a major change. I have no idea what Tony knows about - he certainly runs your script and doesn't appear to check the output as he was messaged recently as he hadn't noticed the problems his changes caused. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I will fix the errors as soon as I can get back to my computer. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Hong Kong RM
Hi, I had saw your write an oppose, so i wanted drop by and leave a note in response to the RM. That title was that because of an RM, but was renamed in contrast by the other guy. I wrote it because I just felt that it was appropriate. Starzoner (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am unsure why you placed an "oppose" vote that you subsequently withdrew. Perhaps you could withdraw the move request? --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * not sure if it was appropriate for me to oppose it. I myself am ambivalent about it but I don’t think I ca withdraw the move request. Starzoner (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you deal with this script stuff please?
I want nothing to do with the person who posted this. Thanks. Tony (talk)  04:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm sorry that an error in my script has caused you all this stress. I think I've now fixed the problem. Hope it goes smoothly henceforth. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:WantedTemplates
Hi! Could you (and Walter Görlitz) do me a favor? Could you add  to the top of any pages you own in this list? This doesn't change how the javascript functions, but prevents the link from appearing in Special:WantedTemplates when it is regenerated. You will be able to tell if it worked by checking this list after the cache has regenerated. The Special:WantedTemplates won't regenerate until the 20th of next month. You can see an example of this hack in the top line of AutoEd/htmltowikitext.js. If you do this, we can clear about 250 entries from the list! Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Plastikspork and Walter Görlitz I think you need a at the bottom of the page as well (based on my own tests in my own scripts).  this is why it didn't remove the pages from the list you mentioned. Frietjes (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a try, but I'd be happy to delete it if the problem I saw in Ohconfucius older template is fixed now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all three of you. It looks like it worked!  By the way, I believe  and  also work in disabling WhatLinksHere.  I don't know if there is any particular advantage to using one over the other.  But, in any event, the next database report will have 250 fewer entries, which is great!  Thank you again! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  15:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Something to ponder
Hello, you may have already considered this, but after using your "products" since last summer, I have come to realize that it might be a natural move if you took GregU's (now retired) dash tool and converted it for use either in a stand-alone module or integrated right into the AWB toolset. From what I understand, it looks to be difficult to capture all the variations where the endash is preferred over a hyphen and. In the last six months or so, the developers of AWB have finally integrated the handling of that issue into the "typo fixing" aspect of AWB, but it falls short of GregU's efforts. Take, for example, how one particular article's dashes came out after using both tools:


 * First edit (AWB typo-fixing)
 * Second edit (GregU's dash script)

Greg really did a knock-out job with his tool. This isn't a request really, as I'm sure it's crossed your mind, but if it did happen, I'd be first in line to take it for a spin. Thanks for all you've done. Dawnseeker2000 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Scripting and Infobox Chinese
You had forgotten to remove intermediate piping at One Country, Two Systems, please be more careful dealing with Infobox Chinese syntax. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kewal Dheer
Hello Ohconfucius. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kewal Dheer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK  12:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

reFill
Hi, I don't know if you are aware, but there are a number of problems with reFill. (About 50% of the daily additions to Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters are due to reFill). The tool hasn't been updated since dead-url was dropped in favour url-status so any references using an archive-url that are filled cause an error. Additionally, it fails to add archive-date when the archive-url is from archive.today. Both of these problems are evident here. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in India
Hi, just letting you know that your script assisted edit at the said article, converted the "-"(minus) within expression into "-"(hyphen) at Line 61. I had to change it back. - Timbaaa -> ping me 04:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Didier Raoult
Hello,

I am not a Didier Raoult fan, but when I just read the current article for the first time, and it is SO against him that I had to check.

Your Modification here is definitely NOT NEUTRAL. He DID find the Giant Viruses, and the cure of the Q Fever, thiat's why it is complex to apprehend him and his suspicious treatment.

Then there are other really suspicious modifications (Like here) where you remove all the start-ups he created with a comment Who care ?, but in the mean time, you add the mention that he was a bad student when he was a child. Are you serious ?? It might be true, but of course creating a start-up and/or a company is important for futur conflict of interest...

I will undo all of your modifications in the near futur if you don't give me an explanation.

--Roniee (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What you said is mostly true, but there's a huge problem of compliance with policies about content that I offered a quick fix to. You're welcome to include material but I hope you will help ensure the article is adequately sourced. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your reply.
 * The current status of the article is so bad, with so many biaised references, that your modification didn't help at all.
 * I am sorry if it will upset you, but I will undo this specific modification where you have deleted 30k data just like that. I have checked the sources : some might be unsual, but his big works are reference by Science' and Journal of Virology'.
 * --Roniee (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't so much upset by your comment as by your referring to my removal as "an act of vandalism". You certainly pointed out some shortcomings, but I often find articles like this which I have to remove huge chunks from. You should bear in mind that WP is not a scientific journal, and when referring to his major works, you need to ensure that they are properly sourced and presented with due weight in relation to his biography. The article in fr.wp is just as problematic and isnt a good model – all the citations from number 58 to 101 are authored wholly or partially by Raoult. Instead of attempting to prune the article down from its assembled unsatisfactory content (i.e. reinstate my deletion and then try editing it), I suggest that you rebuit the article from the ground up. It may be an idea to look for personal profiles such as the one that appeared in the NYT or Paris Match. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Revdels on the Falun Gong talk page
Can you explain why you made a series of revision deletions at Talk:Falun Gong? I want to know what to avoid in the future. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't --  Ohc  ¡digame! 23:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha, thanks for the reply. Binksternet (talk)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear Ohc on the move,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Xi Jinping. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. BSMIsEditing (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! While I can see how the Winnie the Pooh images on Xi Jinping's article might qualify for fair use, and am interested in the outcome of the discussion regarding that question (I hope they get to stay), I really do not think that casting aspersions in the edit summary is all right. The point on censorship, which you apparently daren't even raise properly, instead suggesting someone 'avoid accusations', is not relevant to the determination of whether fair use applies. Good day. Doanri (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting I should have called a spade a spade? I did hesitate quite a lot about it. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; I think one should either take a stand decisively or not say anything at all. In this case, however, I think it would be best to just let that editor dig his own grave through policy violations and avoid commenting on his probable intent too much. I do very much appreciate your contributions! Doanri (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted, with thanks. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Hi , you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly! María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
HI , I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users. Thanks and see you around online, María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC) If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review
Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)