| Revision as of 19:02, 2 April 2012 editJimWae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers37,709 edits →Accessdates: using a bot to change <s>hundreds</s> thousands of accessdate formats counter to WP:DATERET← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:14, 2 April 2012 edit undo1exec1 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,085 edits →Accessdates: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ] specifies that accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD format are acceptable. ] specifies that dates in an accepted format should not be changed w/o consensus. You appear to be using a bot to change <s>hundreds</s> thousands of accessdate formats counter to ], with no consensus or even notification of intention.--] (]) 18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | ] specifies that accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD format are acceptable. ] specifies that dates in an accepted format should not be changed w/o consensus. You appear to be using a bot to change <s>hundreds</s> thousands of accessdate formats counter to ], with no consensus or even notification of intention.--] (]) 18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| : The problem is, articles don't use accessdates in consistent manner. In a lot of places there's a mix of DMY, MDY, YYYY-MM-DD and even DD-MM-YYYY. I agree that sometimes I could make an error judging which format is used more, or just changed to DMY because there were few accessdates at all. I'll try to recheck some of my past edits and fix them if there are problems. And no, I'm not using a bot. A script assists me, so in the end, it's me who approves the edits. I'll try to be more careful. ] (]) 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:14, 2 April 2012
User:1exec1/rwatch User:1exec1/bin
Not vandalism
Hi! FYI, I changed all start of sentence "agile" to "Agile", that you mistakenly reverted as vandalism, in the article of Agile software development, I wrote the explanation at Talk:Agile software development, and hope you understand. Be happy, don't worry! Rursus dixit. (bork!) 13:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, your edits weren't ones I wanted to revert, sorry for that. But before you there was a series of edit by an IP editor that are almost certainly vandalism. I'll try to fix that. 1exec1 (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Accessdates
WP:MOSNUM specifies that accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD format are acceptable. WP:DATERET specifies that dates in an accepted format should not be changed w/o consensus. You appear to be using a bot to change hundreds thousands of accessdate formats counter to WP:DATERET, with no consensus or even notification of intention.--JimWae (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is, articles don't use accessdates in consistent manner. In a lot of places there's a mix of DMY, MDY, YYYY-MM-DD and even DD-MM-YYYY. I agree that sometimes I could make an error judging which format is used more, or just changed to DMY because there were few accessdates at all. I'll try to recheck some of my past edits and fix them if there are problems. And no, I'm not using a bot. A script assists me, so in the end, it's me who approves the edits. I'll try to be more careful. 1exec1 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)