User talk:Ohconfucius/archive11

DEFENDER OF HONG KONG

10:36 AM, Wednesday May 1, 2024

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 Wikipedia for 18 years, 4 months and 1 day.

... Italics for emphasis Italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences; boldface is normally not used for this purpose. Generally, the more highlighting, the less effective it is. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

VC leads

The form of wording you're altering is pretty much standard across all 1350 odd recipients. Even those which have been [passed to FA level have retained the brief note explainging the siginificance of the VC, which is largely there to establish why the award fo the VC is sufficient to make someone notable. David Underdown (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, after reading a few, it became obvious it was 'standard wording'. I had assumed it was already in the articles which were migrated. To me, it read clumsily, and came across as something excessive. I believe the VC is probably well known enough for readers to be spared this. Even if not, I thought that the two links to VC/Victoria Cross in the lead of most of the articles would be enough to convey this, leading those who were unfamiliar to go directly there. In articles where there are only a few lines, one could be mistaken for believing the article was a WP:BLP1E, but I believe that with the addition of an amount of detail in the body (which was already there in almost all cases), or by for example including adding the medal citation, would leave no doubt as to the recipients importance. Perhaps I should have discussed it at WT:MILHIST beforehand, so I apologise. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment at MILHIST would ahve been useful. You also seemed to be rushing through things. I've slowly, and not particualrly systematically been working through them on and off. The London Gazette is very useful. For (British) officers you can reconstruct virtually their entire career, and even for other ranks, you can usually expand if they were awarded other decorations as well, since those will be recorded in the Gazette too, often with a full citation. But to do that properly all takes time. A number of recipietns have artilce in ODNB which also helps, and I have ready access to the stuff that's online at The National Archives, and also online archives of The Times. David Underdown (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Note also that the distinction about being "in the face of the enemy" is necessary as the [[George Cross] is arguably (and boy has it been argued about) just as prestigious as the VC, but this is awarded for actions not considered to be in the face of the enemey. David Underdown (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. I will slow down, and have a look at some of those sources although I don't have access to them all. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In future, I would suggest that you leave a note on a project page or task force page discussing any bulk changes to articles. This means that all the work is not in vain, and it also makes sure that you have consensus for the changes. Almost all the people I have seen work on VC articles have now commented on the WT:MILHIST thread and I think a consensus is apparent now. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:AE

Your actions are being discussed at WP:AE#User:Ohconfucius delinking dates in violation of injunction again. Kevin (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 04:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rp to User:Risker: A word of apology – I was not attempting to use your name in vain to avoid a block. I sincerely believed that I the work I was doing was offering significant improvement to the articles concerned, much along the same lines as when you declared my actions not in violation. I did indeed delink en passant just like I did last time. I agree that there were more articles involved, though. I did more not because my contributions were lesser, but because I had more time on my hands yesterday. I am sorry I crossed that line. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have seen your message, and appreciate the sentiment. Risker (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

TZ

You say you're in Hong Kong, yet you also give your time zone as UTC+7. Doesn't HK observe UTC+8? Bongomatic 04:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

re: crocodile tears

The term 貓哭老鼠 to be translated crocodile tears came into my thought instantly. And after receiving your msg I checked some online ZH-EN dictionaries (just searched from google) also suggest that they're equivalent. It doesn't hurt you want to be literal, but crocodile tears is justifiable because the phrase doesn't look just colloquial and both being idiomatic. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks for violating temporary injunction while logged out, block evasion

Ohconfucius, you've previously been blocked on two occasions violating the injunction, most recently just over three days ago (for 72 hours). While your account was blocked, you proceeded to make edits while logged out, both in violation of the temporary injunction and the block which was placed on your account for violating said injunction.

The IP addresses in question are 219.73.84.1 (talk · contribs), 219.79.176.136 (talk · contribs), 219.78.18.143 (talk · contribs), 219.78.85.140 (talk · contribs), 219.78.18.76 (talk · contribs), 119.236.77.43 (talk · contribs), 219.77.129.140 (talk · contribs), and 219.73.84.1 (talk · contribs). All are  Confirmed by CheckUser as being yourself.

As a result of this, I am blocking you for two weeks. I encourage you to not repeat the acts made by yourself with the above-linked IP's, as I suggest the next step will be an indefinite ban. I would also suggest that CheckUsers and parties, who are now aware of your actions, will be keeping a close eye out during the two week period for anything resembling a repeat dose of the above, so it's in your best interests not to repeat it.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note this edit broke the page and resulted in a inability to read difflinks, whether this was your intention or not I ask that you be more careful. Tiptoety ^talk 01:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've already seen the diff links, thanks. As if blocking me successively and for so long isn't enough, I would very much appreciate it if you would kindly leave me alone. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked 218.103.34.213 (talk · contribs) for a week for fiddling with your userpage. If it is you, please stop editing while you are blocked. If it isnt you, let me know and I will revert those changes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)