Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bobblewik

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobblewik (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 12 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:55, 12 March 2006 by Bobblewik (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Linking of dates

Ongoing discussion of this matter at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Please add all objective opinions and suggestions there. --Quiddity 22:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Archives

I am currently subject to an indefinite block by User:Talrias.
Quote: Blocked until satisfactory reasoning given.
As I understand it, the indefinite block is because he does not like the what and how of my edits that delink some date elements.
No, I blocked you because you continued your edits despite saying you were not going to continue them, and have failed to provide adequate reasoning for these mass changes despite having two failed bot requests, and a clear lack of consensus for the changes you wish to be made in both of them. Because you have shown no regard for requests, pleas and warnings to stop and discuss, you are leaving me with no choice but to block you so you may discuss it. Your insistence on continuing to make the edits when you are fully aware there is significant disagreement with implementing these changes is entirely unhelpful. You've promised in the past to stop and discuss. Admins, myself included, have taken you at your word. You've abused mine, and others' faith. How can we trust you if you promise to not continue these edits and discuss, when you've broken your word so often in the past? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked you for now. You may want to consider getting a broader mandate for your date linking changes before doing such a large number of edits. Kaldari 18:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please do not run this bot again. If you do, I can assure you that Talrias's block will stick. In the meantime, why not work on building consensus and fixing the problems people have with the bot?--Jimbo Wales 19:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope that I can address all the recent comments:
  • Suggestions of untrustworthyness, bad faith, lying, misleading or going back on my word etc.
    • These ad hominem accusations are wrong. Sam Korn and I agreed a temporary suspension. He/she told Talrias: Bobblewik has, for the time being, promised not to make any more such edits. The suggestion that I agreed a permanent suspension is false.
  • Kaldari's unblock
    • This does not appear to have worked. I am still blocked.
  • The bot question
    • I have never knowingly run a bot. Several respectable editors say that I am not running a bot. I do not know how anyone decides what is a bot. It is not just me that is confused.
  • What next?
  • I will stop doing sustained rapid date delinking. It would not like to accept a total prohibition of manual edits, so perhaps somebody independent can suggest constraints that would be acceptable to all.
  • Consensus building. The Manual of style and the article space are hugely mismatched. Either we resolve it or we do not. There can be few editors in this debate that think that there is no mismatch. I do not have any more ideas about how to resolve it right now. I invite others to make suggestions in the MoS talk page. bobblewik 17:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Guidance on the what of date link edits

Role in conflict reduction

  • If an editor disagrees with somebody else's edits, the Manual of style is an excellent resource. Changes that move an article towards the Manual of style are probably better than those that move it away. This applies to edits and to reverts.
  • If an editor thinks the Manual of style guidance is wrong, incomplete or has insufficient support then that editor can propose a change.

Guidance on the how of editing

There are few constraints on how. Fast manual editing can exceed 6 edits per minute with browser tabs and broadband.

The role of constraints in conflict reduction

  • Some editors think that editing without a bot flag should be subject to a speed limit. They may use the term bot-speed. A self-imposed limit of 120 edits per hour has been stated as acceptable for a non-bot. This applies to edits and to reverts.

Working for the good of Misplaced Pages

There are thousands (count them) of links to month articles like July. There are thousands of links to day articles like Saturday. Some articles have multiple repeat links to years (I saw one example with 14 solitary links to 2004, some adjacent). The overlinking of date elements is largely due to a misunderstanding about the role of square brackets in the 'date preferences' mechanism. The understandable ignorance that leads to overlinking and 'me-too' overlinking should be countered in some way.

If anybody would like to address the issues of the what and how of editing (see above), please raise the issue in the talk page of the Manual of style. I would like to see a solution.

My record of supporting editors

A Y Arktos, Ali@gwc.org.uk, ALoan, Antonio Perrito Martin, Armindo, Cyde Weys, dave souza, David D, DES, Donald Albury, DS1953, Duk, EWS23, Fritz Saalfeld, Gflores, Gheorghe Zamfir, gracefool, GraemeMcRae, HappyDog, Haukur, Hmains, Jclerman, Joke, JWSchmidt, Kafziel, Kaldari, KillerChihuahua?!?, Kirill Lokshin, Marshman, Matt Crypto, Michael David, Neonumbers, older ≠ wiser, Omegatron, Pablo D. Flores, Quadell, Quiddity, R. S. Shaw, Randwicked, Rich Farmbrough, Sam Korn, Scottkeir, SlimVirgin, Smyth, Srleffler, Stephen Turner, Stroika, Susvolans, Tempshill, Thincat, Tony, VirtualSteve, Vsmith, Wackymacs, Wetman

A poll for a bot to delink got support in the range 70 to 80%. A poll for non-bot implemention of the MoS would presumably get greater support.

Monobook script

Bobblewik I'm concerned that your monobook script (User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js) pretty much emulates the behaviour of the bobblebot - and that behaviour has just been rejected by the comminity at WT:BOTS (well, twice actually). Could you not use the monobook (preferably blank it so I can rest easy)? Also, could you remove the instruction on how other can install it. I'm not sure that it is wise - the script can make changes that will upset others, and very quickly.--Commander Keane 19:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I placed the instructions there because an editor asked me a question about it. I was blocked before I could reply individualy. As you can see, I have now removed the instructions. bobblewik 17:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)