User talk:Ohconfucius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Please click here to leave me a message.
I prefer to keep all discussions coherent, so I will reply on the same page where messages are left for me. Thanks for stopping by.

Contents

[edit] Third opinion

Can you look at Robert Clarkson Clothier and let me know what you think about quote box or no quote box. You will have to look at the history to see both. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The quote seems out of place in a box, and would even be worse as an isolated quote in wikiquote, as ideas are lost without its context. I presume Clothier was referring to Rutgers, where he had recently been appointed President. If you want to keep it, would suggest that you worked it into the body of the article, as it does indicate the potential he saw in the campus. Personally, I'm not sure it adds to the encyclopaedic nature of the text as it stands. Ohconfucius 14:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Pia-auto-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pia-auto-1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
In grateful recognition of Ohconfucius willingness to clear tirelessly through the chaff with extraordinary diligence and commitment! Eusebeus 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Much obliged to you Ohconfucius 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contested prods

Hi, I have contested the proposed deletions of Daqing Radio and Television Tower, Fernmeldeturm Kühkopf, Jiangsu Nanjing TV Tower and Kaifeng TV Tower. You prodded them as non-notable masts but they seem to be free standing telecom or observation towers, not masts. The articles need a lot of work, though. Feel free to nominate them at AfD if you still think they should be deleted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass prodding of Scottish railway articles

Hi. I notice you nominated 44 stubs on Scottish railway stations for proposed deletion. Although I see why you were concerned about their notability, I wanted to point out that they fall into the remit of a fairly new project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland. I propose raising the matter there and trying to improve the articles rather than deleting them. I'm interested to know what you think of that. Best wishes, --Guinnog 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the explanation. I will leave them alone for the time being. Ohconfucius 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Euro_logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Euro_logo.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)






  • NOT SO FAST "OHconfucius"


  • I find your work to be quite impulsive / compulsive, and after looking through your works here, although quite extensive, you seem pre-occupied with the concept of abusing "self publishing" artists. You also falsely accuse people of "self publishing,"

as you did to me. To be painfully blunt, I would suggest that you research a person and their works before making quick and irrational judgments. My works are not "self published" and I spend virtually no time on "MySpace." To infer my use of MySpace leads me to believe that you may, in fact, be one of the frequent users of MySpace that seem to get delight in putting my employees down all the time. My music will exist with or without you.

I resent the tone and condescending nature of your editing remarks, as if you are here to be a judge and jury.

This is a free jounal with freedom underscored. My children and I are very proud of who we are and what we stand for on this planet. Your false accusations based on no knowledge or research, should be withdrawn.

Truly yours,

Lee Nysted 1-20-07http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 20:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • Remove your flagrant false accusations, please!*
  • I second the motion to remove Ohconfucius as any type of legitimate source of "editing."!

I wrote the article you flagged for deletion. Fortunately there are many "gardeners" here. You did not follow guidelines when nominating an article for deletion, and you have not been here long enough to qualify as an objective resource, in my opinion. (See: The Smiths.)

You made obvious comments alluding to your own involvement on MySpace; that alone deflates your credibilty here.

As a journalist, and a legitimate author of the Lee Nysted article, I will certainly persue this issue further.

C.H.12.35.96.66 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)12.35.96.66 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Huntress829 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Same as above. C.H.

[edit] Duc-Truong Pham

woops disregard the previous message I didn't check the AfD before jumping the horse here :). I have removed the speedy tag nonetheless, since I strongly disagree with speedy tagging an article under AfD review. (anyway, the article has been speedy tagged before, and the tag was removed so you can't put it back if I am correct) -- lucasbfr talk 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • it was another offense, tagged {{db-copyvio}}, and I thought it could be done. Never mind. ;-) Ohconfucius 09:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:LinBao.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:LinBao.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gemma.vogue.dec.05.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gemma.vogue.dec.05.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Housing estates in Hong Kong

It is an obligation. The template clearly states that "Nominator: Please remember to notify the author(s) of this article via their user talk page". It is your ignorance.

I am NOT opposing all the change in topic, but your ignorance to those contributing to and concerning the articles. First, the act of deletion is required to notify the authors but there are none. For systematic deletion, there must be a strong rationale behind. It is worth to discuss your rationale in relavent projects like WP:HKWNB and WP:HK before taking any mass actions. If you raise that it is the notability issues, you have noted that "Notability is not subjective". There must be a objective criteria to judge it is notable. What are the criteria here dividing one is notable or not? It is not judged only by one's personal judgement, but research and consensus. If you have read the notability guideline, you should know that deletion is not the sole way to handling articles without sufficient content. It is only the last option. The first thing to do is put template:notability in the article concerned and there are other alternatives like merge and redirect before deletion. Deletion do destroy the history of contributions which is not good at all. I do appreciate your improvement of lists and it would be better to include many parts of contributions in the individual article.

Here is summary:

  1. Please notify authors when you want to delete an article by putting template:prod.
  2. Please write to relavent notice boards and projects when you are going to make some systematic merge or deletion on a topic. (Here, the talk page of WP:HKWNB and WP:HK)
  3. Please read the WP:N again.
  4. Please state the your criteria about notability like those stated in "Notability is not subjective" and put them in relevant discussion pages. And do research and get the consensus as in WP:N.
  5. Please re-read the "Dealing with non-notable topics" in WP:N and understand the proper way to deal with notability.

— HenryLi (Talk) 07:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gary apple.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gary apple.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:ITV front.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ITV front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Campbell AfD

Please review my comments regarding your nomination for the deletion of Billy Campbell. I have referenced over 20 non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

Given that numerous independent authors, scholars, or journalists have decided to give attention to both the emerging trend of Natural Burial in North America as well as Mr. Campbell’s role as a pioneer in the natural burial movement I would suggest that the primary notability criterion to determine whether "the world" has judged this individual and topic to be notable has been met.

Please reconsider your vote Eulogy4Afriend 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web.com

Nice work on NPOVing that... I had just noticed the article and was over at Village Pump trying to get some people to take a look at it after I noticed it had been almost exclusively worked on by SPAs...--Isotope23 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I have also put in a request for semi-protection in view of the article's history. Ohconfucius 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ericcarmen.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ericcarmen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Partyg.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Partyg.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:ITV back.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ITV back.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Web.com

I think you are misunderstanding these changes. No-one is trying to present something biased but these facts you keep using are slanted. How is a 5 year old uneventful court case that seems irrelevant to the business something that should show up on an encyclopedia, for example. That said, Interland has had all of the problems you mention and more. BUT…Web.com is a new company, with a new NASDAQ stock ticker symbol and a different management team. Since the company started, it has increased shareholder value. The lawsuits mentioned are not recent and were all started during the Interland era. These things should be on the Interland page, not this page. I will try to take a stab at a completely unbiased view but I am worried that the people who added this in the first place will just delete it. People who know and care about the company are doing this and that is why we keep erasing the information. I for one have no problem leaving it in but the information should be more broad so it tells the whole story. We should all try to be unbiased and factual. It is just wrong to say these things (exclusively) about web.com simply because it includes and took over Interland.

[edit] Canadian idol contestants

None of the articles you tagged for speedy deletion fall into any of the very narrow criteria for db-bio. Notability is asserted, therefore they are nto speedy deletion candidates, please take them to AfD if you still think they should be deleted. ViridaeTalk 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbuthnot Road

Greetings! I would be most grateful if you would please expand and improve this article. - Kittybrewster 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Leitao

Hi Ohconfucius, I noted your pet peeve on your user page about reality show contestants not being automatically notable just because they were on a reality show, but if they also did happen to be the topic of multiple, independent, reliable published sources, this would make them notable as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I know the Ashley Leitao article didn't have any of those sources in the article at the time of your nomination, but an alternative to the listing for deletion could have been asking for references on the article's talk page, or posting an appropriate template message like Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Importance_and_notability, or Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources. Sancho McCann 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

On the same subject, you will note that I have !voted to delete those canadian idol articles you have up for deletion. I would have appreciated it if you hadn't implied I was contesting the speedy deletion as a normal editor, but rather running through an admin task. ViridaeTalk 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, didn't realise you were an admin. ;-) Ohconfucius 04:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No probs, thanks for changing the wording. ViridaeTalk 04:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


This section which attempts to address notability has been moved to User talk:Ohconfucius/Discussion on notability. Ohconfucius 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANTM

Fee free to remove the trivia section. I'll totally back you up. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Most of it is now gone for being redundant, or just too bloody awful. Ohconfucius 08:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yamkka language

Could you provide references about this language (the article is on prod again). There's no mention on ethnologue and the whole article smells of hoax. Pavel Vozenilek 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think you may be correct, but it's difficult to tell especially when it's a small language which is extinct, as it is claimed. I recall seeing a couple of plausible articles back then when I executed the merge, but thought it perhaps worth keeping or had potential to be improved. I now notice that the principal editor shares a name with the only existing non-wiki/wiki mirror Ghit. I won't contest the prod. Ohconfucius 01:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survivor pages

I just thought I'd tell you that many of the articles you merged the other day have been previously nominated for and failed afd. Also, you seem to be picking and choosing. What makes Becky or Keith or Rudy any more notable than fellow 3rd place finisher Lex or runner-ups Matt and Lillian (both of whom you merged)? I agree that some should be rid of, but it's proven to be very hard. -- Scorpion 03:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, I am picking and choosing, and it depends very much on the quality of the articles and the references available. Many of them are not properly sourced. I would point out that I have also been posting links and references where these are helpful to asserting the notability of the subject. Ohconfucius 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Very well, I'll see what I can do in terms of sources. And for future reference, if a page has survived an afd, you shouldn't merge it without discussion. -- Scorpion 03:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
For your incredible work with deletionism and keeping Wikipedia orderly, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this Editor's Barnstar.

--S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your generosity and encouragement. Ohconfucius 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Roman names

Hi. I'm fine with deleting List of Roman female names as long as whoever does it makes sure that [[Category:Ancient Roman women]] contains all the entries and that a redirect gets put in place. I think it would have been good to use one of the "discuss this" AfD tags rather than a tag which says "anybody can blow this away in five days unless someone pulls this tag", and adding a quick note to the discussion page... I do think the article should go away/get merged into the category, so I won't pull the tag, but I'd rather it stay than get pulled in a fashion that causes us to lose data and breaks links from outside... I'm also unclear on the transwiki'ng of the article; the wikitionary policy page seems to indicate that not all names should be listed, and a list of full Roman female names (as opposed to Roman female personal names, tribe names, etc.) seems more encyclopedic than lexical, but I guess that's their problem... -- Akb4 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I've checked both articles, and they appear identical. Also there are no broken links to external sites as far as I can tell. I am not familiar as to quite what governs the content in Wiktionary, or the exact process of transwikification. I suppose it would make sense to have a redirect, but you have correctly flagged it on the talk page, so I reckon an admin should take it into consideration when deleting. Ohconfucius 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Kern

Can you please explain why you re-directed this established article without discussion? Clearly it should not be re-directed and I cannot fathom what happened. Hopefully there is a simple answer! Happy Editing :) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Pacheco disambiguation

Please don't remove the disambiguation with Howie Gordon until that article is actually deleted. I have no opinions about the latter article, but it is currently there, so needs disambiguation. You seem to be assuming it will be, but that is by no means a foregone conclusion looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howie Gordon. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assorted redirects

I first noticed with Brittany Petros you're recent activity of redirecting reality TV stars. Now, some may have consensus to do what you've done (I haven't reviewed all, or even most). But you seem to be going around this rather indiscriminately. You're doing it, regardless of how much success and notability they had in, or out, of the show. I see, that you're putting in redirects (e.g. blanking entire articles) with as little as 1 or 2 minutes between edits. Now, you should show other editors some respect, for the time they've invested. Please, fully read each article. Evaluate, all the content in the article. Then, discuss your concerns on the relevant talk page. Consider using the {{mergeto}}. Finally, when you actually do engage in the redirect, please, please, please give an edit summary that says what your doing AND why you're doing it. Also, "red per WP:BOLD" isn't exactly an explanation. In some cases, there was already a prioir discussion about whether to keep a stand-alone article. Such decisions aren't "binding for life", but they do necessite discussion before overturning them. Note, while I undid one redirect, I have not blindly undid your redirects, as I'm quite open to the idea there may be reasons for some of them. --Rob 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Clearly more than one editor believes I may have overstepped the mark, and I deserve the lecture. I will be more careful in future. ;-)Ohconfucius 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web.com unprotection

I think my comment was "Ach, forgot I protected this!". Generally speaking, protection should be a short terms solution; it's not a good idea to leave something protected long term. The last comments on the talkpage were about a week ago, so I decided to open the article back up to editing and monitor the situation. If an edit war starts up I will protect it again. I don't like to leave articles locked though, unless it is apparent that unlocking it will just lead to an edit war.--Isotope23 14:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Rae-Kelly

How come you changed my {{copyvio}} tag to {{db-copyvio}}? The speedy tag is for unambiguous cases, the other one is for ones where a little more investigation is warranted. The author claims that they are the subject, and the owner and author of the website the text came from. I doubt they would have such a clear copyright notice on the originating website if they really knew and understood what they were doing by releasing it under the GFDL, but I think it's best to give them the time to consider it by using the long tag instead of the speedy one. Don't you? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I was acting in sympathy to your vote to speedy which I happened to agree with, and it now seems that there have been exchanges which I am unaware of. I tend to take a fairly ruthless line to copyright violations in general, and even more so when it appears to be vanity, whether for people or for organisations. Ohconfucius 02:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parallels

I left a detailed explanation on the Parallels talk page on why it's a bad idea. The product lines have a similar overall function, but in practice are completely different. The Mac product offers exclusive feature sets, and has a more active production schedule that consistently places that product in its own distinct category. Re-read the articles on the workstation and desktop for mac products, and you should notice that they aren't really similar at all except that they are both virtualisation products. Read my original post on why I disagree, and if you you still believe it's a great idea let me know. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the explanation on the Parallels Inc talk page. I kind of forgot I proposed to merge all three articles... It's great that companies set out to design similar products dedicated to the Mac instead of merely recompiling them for different OS, but when I looked at the Workstation and Desktop articles, it really didn't jump out at me that the 2 products were so radically different. I have nevertheless moved some of the bits around, particularly some of stuff which was under Trivia, which would strengthen the case for keeping the two separate. I would defer to your superior knowledge of the product, but the description of basic product functionalities is very similar. I note the real differences appear to stem from v2.5. Ohconfucius 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reality show contestants

I believe Lisa Leuschner deserves a page here because her run on American Idol was different than other contestants- fans of the show who started watching season 4 don't understand what happened (the outline of the show changed because of her) and through other avenues can be led here to find out. Did you nominate that article for deletion? You seem to be on a hunt to just delete contestants you don't deem worthy- even top twelve contestants. I think the article needs work but to just delete it seems unfair.

[edit] Student groups

I agree with your Prod tag at Cornell Savoyards. What do you think of Penn Singers? -- Ssilvers 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The article just survived an AfD in January, so I would give it maybe six months before trying again. There is nothing there I can see which indicates how it would pass WP:MUSIC, but AfD is often irrational, and I'd leave it at that. In the meantime, I'll place a tag on it and hope someone will care enough to improve it. Ohconfucius 07:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young Halz AfD

I converted the location of the picture you gave in your comment into a link. Hope you don't mind. :) --soumসৌমোyasch 14:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No problems

[edit] Please discuss major moves on Talk pages

I am reverting your changes to Texas A&M articles. Many of these articles are supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Texas and there is every reason to believe they will continue to expand. Before you make wide-scale merges and redicts, you need to discuss such changes on the Talk pages of the article in question. Thanks, Johntex\talk 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Whilst I thank you for the courtesy of your notification, I am furious that you speedy closed the debate on Muster as an inappropriate exercise of your admin powers. I did hesitate in making the wholescale changes to the Tx A&M articles particularly because they were comprehensive and well written, but I do feel they had reached a point where the articles I merged would have been merged had they been taken to AfD. Plenty of articles which editors have spent many hours over have been deleted because they fail wiki policies and guidelines, which I have learnt would take precedence over individual projects. I would be interested to have your reaction prior to taking any further action on the above. Ohconfucius 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to have made your furious. I believe that my actions were within policy. Wide scale deletion and merging is disruptive. I notice people often cite WP:Bold as a reason for acting swiftly, and I see that you cited it yourself during your recent changes. However, sometimes people forget that WP:Bold begins with "Be BOLD…" but it continues with "…but don't be reckless." We can't have a project where one person Boldy does a bunch of changing X to Y and then the next day someone comes back and changes all Y to X. That doesn't get us anywhere.
If you believe I erred to close that nomination, you can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I think you will have a hard time getting it overturned though. For one thing, Muster is cited. For another thing, you weren't asking to Merge it anywhere, you specifically state that the information is too detailed and that you want it deleted. Typically, referenced articles are not passed for deletion.
Texas A&M is a very large school with a very famous set of traditions. I didn't even attend the school yet I am interested in reading about them. Other editors will be too.
So, I won't hold it against you at all if you decide take the closure to deletion review, but I don't think it will succeed. I think the community will endorse the closure. If you do decide to list it for deletion review, it is customary to notify the closer (me) so that I can explain my reasoning.
Best, Johntex\talk 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After doing some further research, I have indeed confirmed your assertion that these are pretty famous traditions. I would apologise, as I appear to have been a bit hasty in my AfD. There indeed appear to be mentions in quite a few places about these, including some travel sites. However, I think the article referencing could probably still be improved, as most appear to be self-refs links could be provided to support these but are not. BTW, I found an interesting one on ESPN news about the time the venue for a midnight yell was usurped by someone else. Ohconfucius 07:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your note. I totally understand that you didn't mean any ill-will, so please don't be concerned. I think I may know the occasion you are referring to when the mignight yell practice time slot got usurped by someone else. If we are thinking about the same event, then it was my university that tried to get in the way. In the event I am thinking of we backed down, though. I'd be interested to know if there was another time. I agree with you that those articles can use better sourcing. I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check and out ultimate goal is multiple sources for each statement on Wikipedia. I'm not the primary author on any of those articles in question, but I'll see if I can lend a hand with some sources. Best, Johntex\talk 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Hello, I see from your user page that you do some translation from/into Chinese and other languages. I have been looking for someone interested in translating Baby Gender Mentor into Chinese. It is a Featured Article here on the English Wikipedia. It is not about China, but it does touch upon the question of gender selection practices in China and India. If you are interested that would be fantastic. Best, Johntex\talk 15:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting article about an interesting product. As this relates to a product which is not destined for release in China, and therefore is without a Chinese product name, it may not be all that good an idea. For a start, the article created would not have a correct article handle. I don't care what the Chinese authorities think, and perhaps I would make a stab a creating a translation of Sex selection to start with, but it is nowhere near as interesting a subject matter. More anon. Ohconfucius 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That is an interesting point about the title. I had not thought about that. Still, it seems like sometimes one has to invent a name for something coming from another culture. The matter has been discussed by Chinese authorities, so they must have called it something. Articles here can be moved easily and I assume that is also the case for the Chinese Wikipedia. Therefore it doesn't seem like the title would be a giant obstacle.
The relevance of the article is another matter. I totally agree with you that sex selection is a much more important article since it is more general. I only mention Baby Gender Mentor as a candidate for translation since it is well-referenced (in English of course) and has been found to be a Featured Article. It's just an idea of course. I totally understand if it doesn't rise high enough to make your to-do list. Johntex\talk 15:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • True, we could create an article with the English name for a title. I will try looking up some sources for the chinese debate, which would also be interesting for inclusion in the English article. I have started on the sex selection article, which will in any case be a useful page to link the article to once created.
  • That sounds wonderful. I'm looking forward to learning what you find. Johntex\talk 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have now translated the article sex selection into Chinese, you will find it here. I am proud to say that it was nominated soon thereafter for featured article. I also added a large section to the Chinese article on Prenatal diagnosis (See here). I have learnt quite a lot from this experience. However, my efforts also confirmed that I am not fully and properly equipped to write or perform translations into Chinese: the work took a disproportionate amount of time. In future, I will continue to make small changes in Chinese where I come across articles needing them, but will restrict my more significant efforts to using the latin keyboard. Ohconfucius 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is exceptionally good work! Congratulations on having it nominated for FA so soon. I can't read a single line of Chinese, but I am guessing that the article is likely to pass FA from the number of green symbols in the voting. Thanks for taking the time to translate an important article such as this. Johntex\talk 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Mississippian

I am confused as to why this must be merged. Several schools have separate articles about their newspapers. Why is this one not relevant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Msengineer1977 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I merged it as there are many examples of when school journals have meen redirected or merged into the school, and the merger was done as it was a stub which I felt did not properly assert its notabilty. I note that in the meantime, the article has had further work, and I now agree that the conditions which led me to merge are no longer the case. Ohconfucius 02:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Live Essentials

Hi, I saw your edits made on December 2, 2006 to Windows Live Essentials and somehow you have moved the Windows Live Butterfly contents into the article. Can I ask what does Windows Live Essentials have anything to do with Windows Live Butterfly? Is there a reason behind this move? Pikablu0530 22:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I merged it to the wrong article, and will put it right. Ohconfucius 02:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

I award you this Barnstar of Babel for your meritous translation work in general and especially for your translation of sex selection into Chinese. The article is well on its way to being a Featured Article in the Chinese Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I award you this Barnstar of Babel for your meritous translation work in general and especially for your translation of sex selection into Chinese. The article is well on its way to being a Featured Article in the Chinese Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, please note I made two replies in the sections above. Best, Johntex\talk 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your encouragement. Ohconfucius 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] web.com reference request

Good catch and sorry for missing the reference when I made the change to the page. I will add it now but here is where I read the details: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bunty234 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/h/c/User_talk%7EOhconfucius_eb60.html"