User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2008/October

Unlinking "AD" dates

The script seems to unlink "BC" dates (like 10 BC) correctly; could the same be done for 10 AD dates and such? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with linking of such dates for historical reasons. There seems little point in having articles for these years if they won't be easily found by the typical amateur historian/reader. But perhaps I am alone in such an opinion. --Candlewicke (Talk) 15:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary, can you give an example where it doesn't? Lightmouse (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiberius Gary King (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see '10 AD' in there. Can you quote the text for me and I will take a close look. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That was an example; right in the lead there is AD 37. Gary King (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw 'AD 37' i.e. 'AD xx' but I was confused by two things:

• You said it unlinks 'xx BC' but not 'xx AD' and that confused me because it is programmed to treat them both the same.
• 'AD 37' is not an example of either.

It may sound pedantic but software is inherently pedantic. Now that I understand what you mean, I can investigate further. It seems a reasonable request. I might not be able to do it immediately. Is there MOS guidance on the format of 'AD' i.e. should it go first, should there be a space? If I am tinkering with it, I might as well make it standard and compliant. Either you can put it on the wishlist at User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist or I will at some point. Lightmouse (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Should probably be 37 AD. Gary King (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the MOS but it did not express a preference. Shall we ask at wt:mosnum ? I would hate to create yet another stick for people to beat me with. Lightmouse (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Philosophically, some of these changes to the bot code are stuff that could easily be picked up on a test run where the bot generates a list of suggested changes and then people suggest corrections and improvements. Sure, some 'live' testing will always be needed (to actually prompt people to look at the changes, if nothing else), but where do you (Lightmouse) stand on the issue of how much testing should be done before starting something like this? I'm asking because some of the changes seem rather trivial (eg. the placement of AD and BC is something that could have been predicted, even without the benefit of hindsight) and something that could have been worked out beforehand, instead of being adjusted "in full flow" if you like. I know the logical response to this is to ask me to provide a list of "obvious" things, and if there is a page somewhere summarising what the code does (please don't point me at raw code) then I'd be happy to do that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, replace bot with script in the above? Bit confused now. Bot is stopped, but when running it used the script that you now use on your account (along with lots of other people)? Carcharoth (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would recommend BC and AD only picked up if in capitals. ad and bc can mean many different things, in lowercase and with periods. British Columbia being the most obvious one (which is in capitals, unfortunately). Carcharoth (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you have several questions there and I am not sure what you mean on some of them. Let me try to respond and hope that some of the responses are useful to you:

• You asked about test runs to generate a list of suggested changes. I don't have script that will do that. The script has been designed to delink dates and if the user cancels the edit, that is the end of it.
• You asked if there is a summary of what the code does other than the code. The answer is 'no' there is no summary other than the code.
• You offered to do something but I am not sure what you are offering.
• You suggested AD and BC only if in capitals. Yes, the existing code only addresses AD and BC when in capitals. Any new code would be the same.

I hope those answers are of some use but I probably missed something. Lightmouse (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine, thanks. I often ask for translations of raw code, but rarely get it. No problem. Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is because the code does lots of things and it keeps changing in response to user requests (such as this one). If you wanted to try out the script for yourself, you would see. Lightmouse (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See also User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist. That may give you more clues as to the dialog that goes on with users about the code functions. Lightmouse (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Is it possible to nominate categories for the bot treatment? These ones are pretty uncontroversial - I wrote nearly all the contained articles prior to the guideline changing (hence this is the only reason why they were linked to start with) and am the only editor of most of them, and all of the dates are dmy (already correctly formatted) and modern era, etc. All in, there's about 450-500 contained articles, I believe - would do them myself but my time available is woefully short.

The categories concerned are:

1. Category:Local Government Areas of Western Australia
2. Category:Former Local Government Areas of Victoria (Australia)
3. Category:Former Local Government Areas of Queensland

If not, that's OK, but never hurts to ask. :) Thanks for any help you can offer. Orderinchaos 02:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I would be happy to do that. You may wish to know that I have created User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist and this would be a suitable request there. Do you think anybody would object to running Lightbot on articles in those categories? Lightmouse (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The only opposition I've seen has come from a different state, New South Wales - the key editors in and associated with the above states have been generally supportive of the new consensus, and without violating WP:OWN, the Victorian category there pretty much is mine. :P (Hence why I haven't added the *current* LGA articles for that state, as I didn't write those.) Orderinchaos 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe you are asking for delinking of full dates, is that correct? Lightmouse (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I haven't historically linked years in my own writing (and even before this standard came out, often delinked them when doing other work on articles) so it was only the link autoformatting I used. If there's any issues with the convert template usage (lk=on etc) feel free to fix. Orderinchaos 15:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to check because you mentioned 'bot'. My bot is 'Lightbot' but it is not permitted to delink full dates. I have to do that as 'Lightmouse'. I can either use the monobook script (I see you have that too) or AWB. Clearly AWB is faster. I generally delink 'common units of measurement' in accordance with the guidance at wp:overlink. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lightmouse (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much - appreciated. Orderinchaos 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

When you are running the AWB script to unlink dates and years, are you reviewing each one to make sure that it is appropriate to remove the link? -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If I may jump in, my response to Bellhalla, above, is relevant here. How would anyone determine this? Should an editor carefuly scrutinise the article (and, presumably, its history and its talk page, and its archives) to determine whether the linking was intended? How many articles have any discussion whatever on that subject? Almost universally, an editor came along and linked all the dates for autoformatting, probably in the course of making some other change, because that was what the MoS recommended, or linked bare years because they'd seen it so many times elsewhere and thought that was what WP required; and no-one commented on it. So there's no discussion to find.

The thinking behind this question appears to be that no outsider should ever change anything in an article without consulting the existing editors first. This run quite contrary to the spirit of WP:BE BOLD. If the change turns out to be unhelpful, or misunderstands something that's not immediately obvious to an outsider, there's always the revert button. And it's reasonable to presume that a change that's in accordance with the MoS will be the right thing to do in almost all cases. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, changes in accordance with MoS are usually enforcing a "consensus" of a handful of opinionated cranks. MoS should respond to WP rather than the other way around. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about consulting other editors. I asked what discretion is applied to each edit. It has nothing to do with the intent of the original linker. It has to do with whether the link has any value. And why won't anybody let Lightmouse actually answer a question for himself? A lot of people have asked some very reasonable questions, but instead of responding he just defers to Tony or others to respond for him.

I have no problem with running a script to remove links AS LONG AS discretion is being applied. If no discretion is being applied, then it's no different than running a bot, which would be unacceptable. All I'm asking for is a confirmation that the user spends a couple seconds looking at each change to ensure that 1) the link doesn't serve any purpose and 2) no errors are produced. I don't think that's unreasonable to expect. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Anderson, will you make me a small, colourful template to label myself as "an opinionated crank"? I rather like it. Tony (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

CR, since you aren't prepared to suggest any practical means for an editor, human or bot, to make such a determination, your question is both empty and tendentious and LM is quite right not to answer it. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My question is simple. Is discretion being used in these scripted edits? It's not a trick question. I don't understand what you mean by "practical means." You read the sentence (or paragraph or whatever you need for context) and form an opinion. Is the link useful? Yes or no. It's not complicated. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and obviously, a bot is incapable of making such a determination, so I'm not sure why I'd try to suggest a way that it could. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes a bot can be programmed to make an intelligent guess. I still think the best results come when bots and humans work together. A bot does the gruntwork to produce some lists and, crucially, present the list in an easily readable and checkable form. And then humans process the lists and filter out the mistakes. Then the list is passed back to the bot for it to do the edits (though it needs to check that things haven't changed since the initial check was made). Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As Carcharoth suggests, there is pre-processing, processing, and post-processing. The 'discretion' is applied at the whole article level rather than for each link within an article. For example, if you created a list of articles that contain the text '2008', it would clearly contain the '2008' article itself plus articles such as '2007', '2009', '21st century'. Either the list itself can be purged of those articles or the bot can be made to skip such articles at run time. Once an article is in a list, Lightbot will process it according to the code. There is post-processing 'quality control' but in getting on for half a million articles that have had link-reduction, I would not be surprised if the quality were well in excess of 99.9%. Generally, if Lightbot will delink a solitary year link, so will the Lightmouse code. The main differences being that the Lightmouse code will also delink autoformatted dates and there is more oversight during the three phases (pre-processing, processing, and post-processing) for Lightmouse. Lightmouse (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that's the information I was looking for. I appreciate the direct response. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Birth and death years and categories

Hi Lightmouse. Would you have time to read the two posts I made here and here? Part of the reason I think some people (or me, at least) objected to the removal of links to birth and death years (that is year links, not the month/day links which really are trivia) was due to the potential metadata implications. Birth and death year metadata currently resides in several places on biographical articles: Wikipedia:Persondata, the birth and death categories (the largest set of data), infoboxes, and links from birth and death years. The trouble is that this is not completely consistent, and if I could program a bot to do a "biographical audit" (as you've been doing a "date audit"), then one of the things I would check is whether birth and death categories existed before removing birth and death year links. One of my questions was whether your bot can tell when it is editing a biographical article and whether or not the birth and death categories are present? Would you be able to analyse the contributions log of Lightbot to see how many biographical articles it affected? Or alternatively, do you think you could do any of the other (admittedly rather large) tasks I suggested in those posts? I wouldn't normally make a personal request like this, but I've tried bot requests several times, and sometimes people have taken this on, but with mixed results. If it's not your sort of thing, don't worry - I just thought I'd ask. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You have asked quite a few questions and I can't provide all the answers.

• If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting delinking a birth year if that article is also in the category 'births in xxxx'. It is possible to create a list of articles in the category 'births by year' and to remove all solitary year links from the article.
• Unfortunately, I do not know of a method for analysing the contributions log of Lightbot in the way you suggest.
• AWB has a facility to create a list of articles within a category AND in subcategories. It should be possible for anybody with an AWB account to provide such a list and the count for you. It is not a trivial task and it may be prone to errors. I don't have time to do it right now but I support your attempt and may try to get a crude estimate for you.

Lightmouse (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the AWB search method called 'category (recursive)', for 'births by year' it comes up with 519,343 articles. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It does help, thanks! It would help if someone could get a similar figure from the "deaths by year" category (and its subcategories), but I appreciate that such large recursive counts take time. The ultimate goal is to consistently keep track of the biographical articles that lack birth and death categories, but as you might have seen on my talk page, User:Dsp13 has pointed out some pages generated back in March, listing some tens of thousands of articles lacking these categories. See User:Dsp13/Living people needing categorization by year of birth and the associated pages. The root of the problem is that basic biographical data common to nearly all articles is recorded in several different places, and lots of effort is wasted updating the same information in more than one place, or keeping it all synchronised. For example, birth and death years are often recorded in plain text in the article, in an infobox, in the birth and death categories, and in the persondata template. Having the same information repeated four times on hundreds of thousands of articles seems terribly inefficient, but that is the system that has grown up. Anyway, I know this is a fair way outside the date debate, so apologies for taking things so far off topic. Thanks again for the response. Carcharoth (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The AWB figure for category (recursive) 'deaths by year' is 235,313. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Silly me. I see that what I wanted was the figure for pages with a death category but no birth category. But that is probably a little too compicated. What I'm after is: number of pages with WPBiography on the talk page (542,884) minus the OR total of Birth category (519,343) and Death category (235,313). In other words, the number of WPBiography pages without either birth or death category (some pages have one and not the other). However, the datasets are not 'clean'. The WPBiography transclusion list is messed up by "group" articles, and not all pages on the category lists have WPBiography on their talk page (that has probably got worse recently). Living people have a category so you can easy track changes to this group. People as a whole (dead as well as living) don't though. Putting WPBiography on the talk page is a kludgey way of doing for all biographies what the "living people" category does for living people. Oh, I'll stop here as rehashing what I said nmonths ago isn't really the thing to do here. But thanks for listening. :-) If you ever feel like running these sorts of queries (especially finding out how many WPBiography pages lack DEFAULTSORT), let me know. There is quite a bit of background to this. User:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run is one jumping off point. But I really will stop there, as doing something as ambitious as that is terribly time-consuming. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Common terms delinking

Hello, great work on the delinking script, really appreciate it. One small thing, I've found that [[United Kingdom|British]] does not get automatically delinked by the script. Could you fix that, or is it purposefully left alone? Thanks, indopug (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It should not be. That is not something that should be dealt with on autopilot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please test it and let me know it works ok for you. I get a lot of requests of this type so I have created User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist so you can see what others are asking for and add your own wish. Lightmouse (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It works fine, thank you. indopug (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

inconsistent dates

Hi
I noticed in this edit, where you unlinked dates via AWB, that the dates weren't changed to a consistent style throughout the article (e.g. it left "January 12, 1990" and "11 December 2006"). I thought that I saw Tony always do that, and if I'm not mistaken using your javascript. Can't a similar mechanism be integrated into AWB as well?
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 17:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Tony uses the monobook code that I wrote. It has option buttons that let you decide in real-time whether to convert to mdy or to dmy format. I can use the monobook code or an AWB script. The AWB script does not permit options in real-time but it does run a lot faster. I have gone back to that article and done a date audit using the monobook. I hope that helps. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I was just wondering. Thanks for getting back & Cheers Amalthea^Talk 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Weirdness

I'm not sure about this sort of stuff. What are the xx's supposed to do? Apart from turn a bad blue link into a badder red link that is. Paint me confused, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'xx' should not be there. I have updated the article. I could explain what happened but it is not an enjoyable story. Thanks for letting me know. I have returned them to their 'bad blue' state where they look like solitary years. I am sure that they will continue to be ignored by users. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I just wondered if there was something I was missing. They'll be unlinked sooner or later. If not by you, then by me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

I noticed that you added Ireland to your code. I recommend also adding aviation. I added it to mine because I ran into it several times.--Kumioko (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to 'xx'? Lightmouse (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its the change you just made today.--Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting that and letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Delinking dates

Thanks for contacting me. You are doing a very good job! I am using User:Yobot that runs through hundreds of articles, so it could be great if I could use it to help delinking dates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if there is any way that I can help. Lightmouse (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Date templates

Hi,

You seem to have an interest in dates, and to have a script used for their mark-up. May I ask that you take a look at {{birth date}} (& {{birth date and age}} ) and {{start date}}, and their use in the hCard and hCalendar microformats? Would it be possible for your script(s) to facilitate their use, where appropriate? I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Lightmouse (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of those templates, and their purpose, and those two microformats. Then, if possible, it would be neat if people making changes like the "original air dates" in this one, using your script (with which, I confess, I am not familiar), were offered the option to have the output formatted using one of the relevant templates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rod Stewart

hello Lightmouse - i noticed that Lightbot did something a bit odd on the artcle on Rod Stewart: it looks like it unlinked just one year of many dates in the article. i went ahead and fixed a bunch of the dates by hand (along with some other changes) but i thought it might be worth letting you know about this rather odd behaviour of your gallant bot. Sssoul (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Lightbot does not change the format. The article was already in US format. It sounds like you are prevented from seeing such errors by your preference setting. Many editors switch off preferences so that they can see these errors and fix them. Have you considered doing that?

Unfortunately, Lightbot does not have permission to delink all dates. I wish it did. If you are interested in this issue, please join the extensive discussions at wp:mosnum.

I have gone over the article using a different script and done a full date audit in just one click. There were *lots* of date errors. If you want to make use of the script, just let me know. Lightmouse (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for fixing all those dates and sorry for mistaking the first change for a US/UK deal - i am distinctly undercaffeinated! i've swtiched off my preferences and will now go look at the wp:mosnum discussion; meanwhile i'm not sure i'm technologically equipped to use the date-changing script - i use zonealarm, and i know that can be a problem with some scripts & other wikigizmos. i do a lot of date-fixing by hand, though! thanks again. Sssoul (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that you have turned off your preferences, you will see lots of these errors. I warn you, the discussion at wp:mosnum can be a bit scary.

I can't see Zonealarm being an issue with the script. If you want to try it, here are the instructions anyway. Go to User:Sssoul/monobook.js and add:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

then save the page. Then clear your cache according to the instructions on the page. That is all. When you next edit a page, look in the 'toolbox' at the bottom left below 'What links here'. You will see 'Delink dates to dmy' and 'Delink dates to mdy' plus some other handy one-click options. Anyway, I will leave it up to you. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"the discussion at wp:mosnum can be a bit scary" smile: yes, i see what you mean! personally i'm really happy about the verdict to unlink dates/years, so after i get some more caffeine in my system i'll see if i can grasp how to enable/use this script. thanks and swing on! Sssoul (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

... well, either the caffeine isn't working or the script isn't - i've tried twice to import it, cleared my cache a few times, restarted my browser (firefox) and it still doesn't show up in the "toolbox". if you have a minute to let me know what i'm doing wrong - and/or how to get rid of that "sssoul/monobook" page if it's just somehow not compatible with my technology - i'd be very grateful - thanks Sssoul (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It won't appear until you have a page in edit mode. Lightmouse (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ah so! thanks very much Sssoul (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you got it working. Any questions just ask. You may also request changes at User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AWB bug affecting your module

Hi, I've just started using your script as part of my general fixes (I'm migrating over to the module option, much more powerful..). Thanks for an accurate script. I wanted to advise you of one AWB bug that I found that affects the script: see here. I was combining your fixes with my own and had some terrible trouble with a cite template fix I was using. After a few hours of swearing at my computer I found the above bug! Thanks Rjwilmsi 13:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented there. Lightmouse (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Processors

Your bot replaced [[8051]] with 8051 because it was a date. [[8051]] was wrong but not for that reason. Mike92591 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for spotting that and fixing it. It is an extremely rare false positive but I should be able to avoid it. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it actually seems to be a fairly common occurrence among the old school Intel processors (4004,4040,8008,8048,8080,probably a few more). You might want to look into those cases too. Mike92591 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. I will work on it. Lightmouse (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

More examples on Forth (programming language): 6502, 6800, 8051. Could you at least fix your bot to avoid a double edit in case non-years are manually reverted? One idea: check whether potential year links to remove are redirects instead of actual pages. Bonus if you substitute the redirected link. --IanOsgood (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Using a specific range might not be a bad idea either. Mike92591 (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was planning on getting the code to avoid numbers beginning 3 to 9 because 1995 and 2008 begin with only a 1 or a 2. However, I forgot that there are three digit years that begin with those digits. I then started thinking that I would check the processor names and articles like 8086 are actually redirects from 'Intel 8086' So I thought that I would run through and correct all the redirects in the articles. But then it seemed that the corporate and technical naming was not straightforward. Is there a place where we can go to get general agreement on the article names anywhere? Lightmouse (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I have found a way to exclude numbers beginning with the digits 3 to 9 but only if the number has 4 digits. Lightbot is running with the new patch now. Thanks for the feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the Village Pump discussion at: Correcting references to processor names e.g. [[8086]] ->[[Intel 8086|8086]]. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Single change on article with lots of linked dates

One of your bot edits popped up on my watchlist. This one. I went to look at Soviet and Russian manned drifting ice stations and I saw a whole load of links in the articles. I was about to de-link them all, and put in a missing geo-coord template, but thought I should check here first. Was there a reason for delinking a single year and nothing else? If not, I'll be happy to go and delink all those dates. Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is not permitted to delink full dates. It is permitted to delink solitary months but that feature is currently switched off. Thus the only date that it could edit in that article was the solitary year. So go ahead and do the rest if you wish. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also changed the "as of" dates from links to use the "As of" template instead. Does your bot or script include that change or not? See Wikipedia:As of and Template:As of. This goes sllightly beyond date links, but as I think most of the "as of XXXX" links are redirects to the year, it is sort of related. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

<sob> :-) Tony got there before me. Well, using a script was always going to be faster than manually doing it... Now I have to find out what a "hanging hyphen" is. :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Damage to Frank Worthington page

Hi, please take a look at this edit where 'Lightbot' has mangled the page. Smile a While (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that and fixing it. The code has been updated so it won't happen again. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Whatcha Think About That

An article that you have been involved in editing, Whatcha Think About That, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatcha Think About That. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? raven1977 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Co-ords

Does your script do geographical co-ords? Like this? I'd personally keep different sorts of changes separate, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. It is way outside my scope of knowledge so I would prefer to leave it to somebody that knows what they are doing. Lightmouse (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Brackets inside brackets still a problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaminade_High_School&curid=910179&diff=243336899&oldid=241552063

Thanks. There appears to be an issue with an external function and it has been reported. I am waiting for further information. I have gone back over that article and done a full date audit. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

8086

I would suggest that you avoid removing links to 8086 when removing links to years. If you have a log of such edits, it maybe useful to revert them. The 8086 page does not refer to the future year 8086. Philhower (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. Please see the discussion on this topic in the User_talk:Lightmouse#Processors section on this page. Lightmouse (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delinking of dates in first paragiraffe of biography...

I was used to always linking the birthdate and deathdate in a biography, but I now see the discussion that (as of August) starts to move policy in the other direction; I expect you may because of your script receive a number of throaty complaints from people who have not heard of the recent changes... would it help if I took part in a small-scale volunteer effort to spread the word (as it were)...? Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is music to our ears, Schissel. Why aren't there more of your type on WP? Running the script itself spreads the word through the link to MOSNUM in the edit summaries. What we do lack is a solid program of dissemination at WikiProjects. Does Lightmouse agree that this would be a welcome move?

I'm thinking of some kind of stock posting that you might paste in, perhaps tweaked a little for some projects. Let me think. I've approached the South Africa, Zimbabwe, Australia, Indonesia and China projects from the perspective of the date format they use: SA and Z needed to confirm that they do in fact use international format (true). The Australians needed a boot up the posterior for using a lot of US format, especially their sports editors. The Indonesians approached me directly for advice. I let the China WP know that the article on China is international, yet almost all China-related projects use international. In all of these postings, I've reminded them of the new practice of not autoformatting. I've also put prominent notices about DA at GA and PR talk pages, as well as FAC and FLC.

Did you have any ideas for targeting? Tony (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help as well. Was it mentioned in the Signpost outside of the MoS changes updates? One suggestion if I may - avoid using the jargon "DA" - as not many people will recognise it as meaning "date autoformatting" (which is itself jargon, as some have pointed out). Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The more that the recent changes become known, the better. I can think of several ways in which people would stop linking and/or remove linking:

• people see the delinking edit and investigate
• many articles are now link-reduced and people simply copy by example
• people would see a comment by somebody else

I would be delighted if you would help spread the word. Lightmouse (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No targeting ideas yet, will try to give some thought and speed - thank you. Schissel | Sound the Note! 07:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking dates

While I agree that dates tend to be overlinked, I strongly disagree with the idea that they may be unlinked by bot. The portion of wp:mosnum that applies reads Dates ... should not be linked, unless there is a particular reason to do so with a footnote What these particular reasons might be is currently under discussion at the talk page. There is no way the bot can judge whether there is a "particular reason" for the link it is removing, never mind keeping track of the discussion of such reasons at a talkpage. Take this edit where I would agree with the unlinking of 2001, 1930, 1966 and 1967, but disagree with the removal of the link to 22nd century BC. --dab (𒁳) 08:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If somebody is curious about a date element, what is to stop them typing it into the search box. Are you saying there is something special about BC dates or something special about centuries? Lightmouse (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dab, recommendations to avoid the linking of trivial chronological items has been sitting in other style guides for quite a while. Tony (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot stopped

Per concerns at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), I have stopped Lightbot for the time being. Please address the concerns there and be able to demonstrate consensus for the de-linking of dates before proceeding. Thanks, Shereth 16:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't re-start the bot with the boilerplate "See owner talk" message; there is nothing here on your talk page that addresses the concerns at WT:MOSNUM. If the bot re-starts itself without a resolution to the concerns at that talk page, I will block it. Shereth 22:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be less aggressive. Removal of the word 'stop' is not the same as running the bot. Lightmouse (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be more descriptive. I will grant that removal of the word 'stop' is not the same as running the bot, but without more of a justification than "See owner talk" (which is not only undescriptive but somewhat dishonest considering there was no discussion regarding the concern whatsoever) it can only be interpreted as a precursor to a resumption of the bot. I won't immediately take action if the 'stop' is removed, but if it does resume de-linking years/dates without a resolution to the above referenced discussion it will be blocked. Shereth 22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The text on the bot page directs people to this page. The 'see owner talk' is a standard response to reinforce that and it comes up anyway under autocomplete. I will remove the word 'stop' and we can see what happens at wp:mosnum. Lightmouse (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, an accusation of dishonesty is rather aggressive, don't you think, Shereth? I'd be pleased if you were seen to act in a totally disinterested manner in this matter. Tony (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As would I you, Tony. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I make no pretence to be disinterested in this matter; on the contrary, I'm flying the flag for a more disciplined and sensitive approach to our unique and valuable wikilinking system, to strengthen it. But it is not I who have taken administrative action in stopping the bot. The rules for admins are quite clear: that such actions should not be taken where the admin has any personal stake in the outcome. Please read those rules. Tony (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of information, nobody has taken any administrative action yet. -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a block an administrator action? Lightmouse (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you or your bot been blocked? -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Has a block threat been issued? Lightmouse (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that an administrator action? -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Who else can issue block threats? Lightmouse (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Any editor - see all of our warning templates. -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Shereth an administrator? Lightmouse (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How many roads must a man walk down, before you can call him a man? -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Five hundred and seventy six. Does the phrase:

• I will block it

mean something other than 'I will block it'? Lightmouse (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is that a rhetorical question? -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you read it that way? Lightmouse (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is making me dizzy. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting on Talk pages

Good afternoon, Lightmouse. In this edit, you inserted a large number of blank lines between the individual comments in a discussion thread. Please don't do that again. Many common browsers fail to interpret the nested indentation properly when you insert blank rows like that. The browser interprets the paragraph break as an instruction to restart the indentation and inserts a blank line for every level of indentation of the subsequent comment. Rather than showing up immediately below the preceding comment, a level-six indentation shows up six blank lines below. The page ended up with massive amounts of wasted white space and was extraordinarily difficult to read. It probably doesn't matter for short discussions with only one or two layers of indentation but when long discussions reach deep levels of indentation, it gets very disruptive.

Thanks. Rossami (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't know that it caused problems for browsers. I was trying to make it easier to read when in edit mode. Furthermore, I wish there was somewhere that we could discuss such matters. I often read Wikipedia on very small screens and six level indents can make text disappear off to the right, so I wish there was a way to let people know that alternate indenting does not cause that problem. In addition, some people use bullets and others use plain indents. I can't think of a good place for such discussions, including what you say. Any suggestions. Lightmouse (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify that it doesn't cause problems for all browsers. Firefox correctly interprets indentation even with the skipped spaces. Internet Explorer, on the other hand, ... (I should stop typing on the "if you can't say something nice" principle.)
Perhaps one of the Manual of Style sheets has some help for the general case of making your comments more readable. I do know that there is some discussion in the Guide to deletion but that's specific to the narrow case of AfD discussions (where the established norm is indented bullets).
I find that bullets make it much easier to tell where one person's comment ends and another begins. I usually follow the format of the previous editors (and most others do the same) but if I have the chance, I almost always use bullets. The downside to bullets is that you have to use the <br> command to force a line return. Otherwise, your comment gets separated from your signature. When reading in edit mode, the reader sees a gray block of text. This comment would be an excellent example. Miserable, isn't it?
The page about "modifying the comments of others" does include a specific exception to allow refactoring the discussion to standardize the indentation. You could always just pick a style for that discussion and straighten it out if it's especially confusing. I will often do that if I'm going to comment on a discussion. But there's no set standard that applies for all discussions that I know of and I wouldn't hold out much hope for forcing such a standard.
On your related question of deep indentation flowing off the right of small screens, perhaps we can ask the developers to do something with the CSS. They might be able to build some code into the style sheet and vary the presentation of the page based on the reader's screen width. That would probably be a Village Pump request.
If I find an MOS discussion page, I'll send a link. Please copy me if you find one first. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I try to rule IE out of my life but it is difficult to wean webdevelopers off it. I will ask at the village pump now about small screens. Thanks for all your other helpful thoughts. Lightmouse (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Mary Shelley

Your edit to Mary Shelley has been partially reverted since it broke the image reference. Kaldari (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right. That is due to an external function. I will report that to people that might know how to get the function changed. Thanks for the feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be awesome. This particular image has been "fixed" so many times, it's ridiculous. I finally just deleted the image and renamed it so that people would stop breaking it every few weeks :P Kaldari (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you did the best thing in the short term. Sorry that you have had so much grief. In the long term, it would be good if you could say the same thing at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Broken_image_description. The issue is way outside my technical knowledge but those guys might know what to do. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AWB dysfunction

Can you please review this edit made with AWB and fix whatever failure caused you to leave this article with dates formatted inconsistently? Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

looks like the script simply removed the square brackets. The date audit script here does that job very well. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now done a full date audit of the article. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

Is it possible to change the script so that when multiple formats for dates are used (4 December 2008 v December 4, 2008) in one article the article is flagged for cleanup? As I recall the MOS recommends that dates in an article follow a single format. Since you are processing the dates, it is the perfect time to flag problems. I would probably ignore date in the cite tags for this unless you know of a consensus to convert these to ISO format. I don't think that the bot can do the change since which format to use depends on other factors like the most common, the dialect of English being used and other factors. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to pre-select articles on the basis of likely format e.g. articles about Australia. The two activities (delinked and format fixing) can be done at once. But splitting the activities into two phases has the advantage that delinking can be done quicker and it makes absolutely no difference to the format most users see. It would also be possible to add a flag to articles to say that they need checking but I am not convinced that tags actually add much value. I do ignore citations because I can't work out what on earth the citation people are doing about this issue - I wish they could find a solution soon. Lightmouse (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Year/date linking

Hi, I would not unlink those years/dates which has some historical meaning, eg. car articles foundation years, because it can be intresting to see what happened in that year and maybe that foundation is mentioned in that year article. --— Typ932^{T | C}  20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that something that is worth bringing up at wp:mosnum? I would hate to be the only one following such a suggestion while everybody else ignores it. Lightmouse (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Typ, can you provide an example or two of where such a link is likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic? Tony (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Year linkage

I am aware that linking to dates (for whatever reason) is now against the rules. But some of the linkages are, in fact, not to a date, but to a page. Links like [[1923 in radio|1923]] go to the "In Radio" page for that year. This is an ongoing radio project. I appericate the work you have to do, but please leave links like these alone as they are not date links, but Wiki links. Thank You...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 10, 2008 @ 08:32

Hi thanks for your comment,

Although that link actually goes to another page, it looks just like any other year link. Links that look like a year link will be treated like one i.e. ignored. Concealing links in this way is increasingly regarded as not the right thing to do, particularly if you want to encourage people to click-through to the article. Some projects go as far as to deprecate it and suggest the link should be explicit or contain at least one non-date word. This issue does crop up from time to time on wt:mosnum and I am sure other people there will be interested in what you have to say, particularly if you state the page that you mean. Lightmouse (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

One option, which I believe is highly effective, is not to include such "concealed" links in the body of the text, but to choose the several most important ones and link them explicitly (not piped) under the "See also" section. Tony (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please help clean up Hurricane Ike

You have recently edited Hurricane Ike. There was a recent bad anti-vandal edit that needs significant work to repair. See Talk:Hurricane Ike#Wiping out 15 edits to restore 123 edits caught in an anti-vandal edit if you want to help. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

...changing the links in the Aggie Bonfire page. These were significant events in that year/on that date and have been appropriately linked. If you disagree, let's talk about it on the talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked why these links are relevant on the talk page. Tony (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Metadata and Wikipedia:Link intersection

You asked about metadata, and I replied here. That also reminded me of Wikipedia:Link intersection. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The job

Yes, I did have a job for Lightbot. I have to get back to you on that. JIMp _talk·cont 09:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

date linkage

Hello. I noticed your edit to one of the articles I watch, and I was wondering what the thought process or methodology for unlinking dates was. A quick look at the MOS link you provided in your edit summary just confused me more. I'd thought the policy was to link dates so that user preferences would appear properly in the user's preferrred format. Thanks in advance for any clarification you can give. bahamut0013♠♣ 11:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

The MOS section is at Wikipedia:Mosnum#Date_autoformatting. It says:

• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated.

Over a period of years, the guidance was debated extensively. The consensus now is that autoformatting should not be used because it is worse than leaving dates unlinked. There are many problems with the date autoformatting mechanism including:

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for registered (Wikipedian) users who have set their date preferences and are logged in.
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how it differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.}}

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that all makes good sense. I suppose I need to break that habit now, lest I create more work for someone else. Thanks for the explanation! bahamut0013♠♣ 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding your script

Hey. Firstly, great script! I'd seen a few people around using it, so I've decided to give it a go myself - it really does a great job of de-linking dates and setting them to a specific standard for a page. My question is - could you script be modified to also remove the "th", "rd" and "nd" from month dates? Some of the British articles I've been tidying up using your script have these date suffixes, and as far as I'm aware, they go against MOS policy. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scrap that - it appears that if you use All dates to ..., then it does remove the suffixes. It didn't seem to do that when I did Delink dates to ..., but all dates also does the delinking so that's not a problem. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It should have worked for 'Delink dates to ...', I'm surprised that you have found that it didn't. Can you give me a link to an article where you found that it didn't work? Lightmouse (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit was this one. At that point, I was just using delink date, and the 23rd September wasn't linked, hence it not removing the "rd".

Another issue I found (which might be fairly easy to fix), was the script not understanding a "duplicated" date, where the day is both before and after the month. In this case, it was obviously a typo, but it might be useful for your script to be able to detected these duplicate days and remove one of them (I deleted it manually here). ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 09:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. The '23rd September' was not linked and that explains why it was not handled by the 'Delink dates to...' code. It was handled by 'All dates' code. That is how it should be. I was worried that you had found a loophole. I am glad that we have cleared it up. With regard to duplicate days, I would prefer not to tackle it because of the danger of false positives. Unfortunately, there will always be a requirement for manual intervention and supervision. The code still makes occasional errors, if you use 'All dates to ...', you have to watch out for direct quotes, URLs and titles of journals. Thanks for discussing this, the code is really sophisticated now due to user requests/feedback (and the huge range of errors made by people that link dates). Feel free to use User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist, you will see the range of suggestions from other users. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. As you say, that date would have been caught by "All dates to...", which I wasn't using at the time (because I didn't realise it had effectively the same functionality as "Delink dates". I always make sure to check the changes before submitting it, just in case the script misses something or changes the functionality of a template (as it almost did to a PUI template). If I think of any other changes that might be useful, I'll make sure to suggest them.

Thanks again for developing this really useful script - it's saved me hours of reverting dates by hand! ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 10:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But now you have mentioned 'almost changing a PUI template' I can't let you go. You have to explain what it did wrong or say that it worked correctly. Lightmouse (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was a PUIC template, and it was this page it almost affected. The image in the infobox had a PUIC template associated with it, and the script tried to change the date from "2007 December 23" to "2007 23 December". In the end, I deleted the template since the discussion was now obsolete. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 10:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. I did a couple of tests and the change in date didn't appear to make any difference to how the template looked, but it might have been used for tracking. If that template is obsolete (and now deleted from the article), it is not worth me investigating further on that template. However, such a thing could affect a different template, I will watch out for it. Thanks. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the dating on that template (and the fact the image is still there), I gather the image deletion was unsuccessful, and so is no longer required. If I come across any other template issues, I'll make sure to let you know. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 11:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Please do. Lightmouse (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Script suggestion

Thanks for all your good work on your script, which I have used to delink and make consistent the dates on many articles. I wonder if you would be able to include ISO conversion in the script so that [[2008-01-01]] would convert to January 1, 2008 or 1 January 2008 as appropriate. Thanks and keep up the good work. --John (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to be able to do that. Unfortunately I can't because citation templates need ISO format dates. The citation people have supposedly been working on a solution but I have no idea what they are doing. Lightmouse (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Script for fixing dates

Many thanks for the tip, I will give that script a go. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The options appeared in the left menu (below "What links here etc") but when I clicked the various options they didn't seem to do anything. I've removed the script from my script page for now. --Jameboy (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, it seems to take half a minute or so to convert the dates, so it might be working but appearing not to. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Israel Kleiner

Dear Ligthmouse

I am doing research on Israel Kleiner and would like to learn how you obtained information on him. Any advice you can provide about how I might proceed would be greatly appreciated. Friedj54 (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is Israel Kleiner? Lightmouse (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot unlinking of 'Avyear' template?

I just noticed that the 'avyear' template has been unlinked by a bot on many of the articles that I recently added it to which I find quite disheartening and demotivating. I note some conversation here [1] but I understood that this template would remain unaffected by the date unlinking process because of it's special function of linking to the many 'year in aviation' pages which presumably will now all be redundant as they can't be linked to. I read the Av project talk pages daily and I can't see where it says that this template is no longer to be used. Regards. Nimbus (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel disheartened and demotivated. My intention is not to cause upset but to improve Wikipedia. The problem is that I can see that avyear is somewhat sparsely and apparently randomly implemented. Furthermore, many templates including avyear actually break autoformatting and *must* be removed even by people that think date linking for preferences is a good idea. The avyear is a 'concealed link' because it looks exactly like a solitary year and so readers will ignore it. There does appear to be consensus that concealed links are ineffective at providing click through and have many other undesirable side-effects. The current thinking appears to be that links should not simply look like a date (unless it goes to the *actual* date article) and one way of doing that is to make sure they contain at least one non-date term. Thus avyear is not a good method of getting click-through to to the year in aviation article. Using 'category xxxx (year) in aviation' would probably be a better method because

• (a) categories are not concealed
• (b) categories are wysiwyg i.e. you know what a category is and what it does
• (c) categories don't require training, avyear and other templates require users to be trained in how to avoid damage to autoformatting
• (d) categories can be applied to a huge number of articles very quickly (with software assistance if necessary)
• (e) it is a well-known technique
• (f) janitorial people like me won't have to fix broken autoformatting
• (g) categories don't add to the date link noise surrounding high value links

Having said all that, if you are suggesting that avyear is merely to provide the functionality of category without actually being category, then it would be possible to redesign the avyear template so that it does not look like a link to a solitary year. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Lightmouse (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, there is a discussion here [2] on amongst other things how to effectively link back to the 100+ 'year in aviation' articles. It was my understanding that the aircraft project at least had agreed only to use 'year in aviation' in the infobox and a survey of article edit histories would show that it was being removed manually from the text slowly but steadily. The 'avyear' template was also being added slowly to the 8,000+ aircraft articles, in many cases the actual first flight date was missing, had to be researched then added which all takes time. I and others are concerned that whatever method of linking to relevant aviation date articles (categories, navboxes, templates etc) will be subject to later removal. There is no incentive for me at least to come up with and implement something along these lines. I know that it has been mentioned before that when 'mouse hovering' over the date it actually said '19XX in aviation' perhaps emphasising that this was a relevant link worthy of visiting and that it was not a hidden feature. All seems pretty academic now anyway. Nimbus (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion. It looks very interesting.

I note that you weren't sure what would happen to a link such as [[1974 in aviation]]. The answer is nothing would happen to it, as far as I know. The debate has focussed on links that are either normal date components or look like them.

You also mentioned the 'xxx in aviation' articles themselves. As far as I know, the debate has focussed on the meaning of 'context'. In the case of an article like [[1974 in aviation]], a link to [[1974]] is unlikely to be disputed (I think).

Lightmouse (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dumb question concerning your script

Hello. I installed your script and cleared my cache. When I edit an article, I see the new options on the left-hand side. When I click on any of them, the script completes the edit summary but no changes are made to the article text. Is there something I should be doing (beside clicking) to get the script to work properly? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It will not always make changes. Try pressing 'Delink dates to dmy' or 'Delink dates to mdy' on this page. It should delink the following:

• Test of date delinking October 14, 2008 and October 14, 2008

If that doesn't work, then your browser probably has a conflict with a plug in. If that is the case, I am not much help to you but you could try logging on to Wikipedia with another brand of browser and see if it works. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't working in Firefox, but it works in Internet Explorer. I'll try to figure out what extension or script is causing the conflict. Thanks! — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the script doesn't play nice with wikEd. The script works fine when I deactivate wikEd. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember now that somebody else had a clash with wikiedit. I found this in the archives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_10#Date_autoformatting_change

Glad you got it working. If you have any suggestions/comments, feel free to drop them in at : User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please consult with other editors Before making changes

While I appreciate that you are trying to create a degree of uniformity when it comes to page numbers in citations you are also creating a headache for other editors: I have had to go through one article which now has error labels because you have removed the information required for these citations to be recognised as valid. Could you please provide the rest of us with some warning before you go ahead with such changes? Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That does not sound good. Can you give an example of where this occurred? Lightmouse (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The problems were in Supermarine Spitfire operational history; there were some same page citations which were affected. Rlandmann has asked that I refer any problems with Lightbot breaking citations to him. If I have come over as all grumpy, my apologies - it has been a long week already! Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have looked at the edit history of that article. I can't see any edit by Lightmouse. I see that Lightbot touched the article on 8 June 2008 by editing elements of three paragraphs but I can't see any error relating to page numbers in citations. Can you say which of the edits in the three paragraphs is the problem? Lightmouse (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Humble Apologies again - you had nothing to do with the problems I encountered; like I say, it's already been a loooong week. The problem is that some time in the last three days the Rp template suddenly started appearing. If you have a look at the revisions under

20:07, 13 October 2008 Mugs2109 (Talk | contribs) (93,930 bytes) (Added images and NOTE about April 22 recon)

You'll see what has happened. 22:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The script

Hello... all differences of opinion about the date issue aside, I'd like to ask that you either remove or disable the "common terms" portion of the script that delinks countries and cities until some form of consensus is achieved as to whether or not it should be used, and also as to what should be included. Right now, the terms are somewhat arbitrary, and can be argued as reflecting a limited perspective as to what is "common". (To clarify, by "limited" I mean specifically that there is no broad discussion as to what should be included; it appears to be more a case of what individual editors request.) Further to this, I've encountered numerous instances where use of the script has removed useful links that have to then be restored. I'd appreciate it if you could address this matter. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have used 'common terms' part of the script much, if at all. Have you asked the people that make the edits? Lightmouse (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about your edits in particular, but about the code for countries and cities. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony's response: CONTEXT currently says this:

"In general, do create links to:... geographic place names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers or to have names that are similar to or the same as other place names."

"It is generally not necessary to link:... items that would be familiar to most readers of the article, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, astronomical objects, historical events, religions, languages, and common professions."

Yes, it is sometimes difficult to draw a hard-and-fast boundary between what is familiar and what is not, but at the moment, the linking (often many times through an article) of items such as "Pacific Ocean", "Canada", "United States", "UK", "Australia", "Europe", "New York", "London" (when the context is clearly not London, Ontario), and many many more is a cancer of overlinking. The same goes for demonyms: new editors see "American" and "Australian" linked at the top of just about every relevant biographical and popular music/vid article there is, and go on to duplicate this unthinkingly. Who doesn't know what these words mean?

I believe that WP should not be a magic geography lesson for the eight-year-old who doesn't know where "Canada" is. If they don't, they can type it into the search box; the article on the topic, in any case, is a big overkill in relation to just about any topic except a sibling one such as "Economic history of Canada" (one link, at the top would be quite enough). I can see why you might have a case for reinstating "Canada" in sibling articles (but is is multiple instances? I haven't gone back to check.) Perhaps "sibling article" is a term we might use in the MOSLINK guideline, not as a blanket restriction, but as guidance to editors who would like to be apprised of a more sophisticated approach to linking such terms, rather than taking the easy route of linking every occurrence in every article.

In other articles, do you agree that in an article on a Canadian band, "Canada" and "Canadian" is unnecessary to link even on first occurrence. Usually, there are other much more important links in the vicinity that are more functional if not crowded out by the obvious. Particularly at the opening, more important items vie for linking, and openings can be a sea of blue if we're not careful. Tony (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for the comment; I'm aware of your feelings on this matter, as you initiated the text in WP:CONTEXT. However, your opinion (and mine, which differs) illustrate the point I raised; the script is removing links based on personal opinions, rather than any established consensus. You feel the links are a "cancer", but many do not; further to this, use of the script to remove these terms is creating a problem wherein terms are unlinked when they should not be. Again, unless there is an established consensus to remove the links, we should not be automating and expediting the process. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We're also aware of your view on the matter; "feelings" appears to be a way of implying that attitudes are solely internalised and held by me alone. This is clearly not the case. The recommendations against trivial links have been in CONTEXT for quite some time, so I don't know where you get the idea that suddenly they're against "consensus". The "problem" you talk of is only constructed in your own terms; your statement in that respect appears to be circular and self-supporting alone. Semi-automation of the process of improving WP has been long practised and is obected to only by those who object to manual changes of the same type. I don't think I inserted the geographical text into context—wasn't it Colonies Chris? Of all the thoursands of articles in which trivial common terms have been delinked, only you and two or three others have complained, and of them, only you have taken strong exception (I have conceded that you may have a case in relation to sibling articles, but again, you haven't engaged with my specific suggestions and questions; this makes it very hard to move forward in debate when you simply put up a wall and refuse to negotiate on substantive details. Tony (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony, the text of your "Tony's response" comment above clearly outlines a personal opinion, other than the quotes from CONTEXT, hence my first statement. Please don't read anything more into it; if it helps ease your mind, I've changed my first line from "we're aware" to "I'm aware of your feelings". I've also made a point of noting that my opinion differs in the subsequent sentence. With respect to the guideline, the change in focus was initiated by you in early July, when you rewrote MOSLINK and then integrated your changes into CONTEXT. The simple fact is that there is no directive from the larger community to carry out a widespread removal of the links in question. (Yes, nothing stops you from doing it, and nothing stops others from restoring them.) There is also no directive from the community to presume what readers may or may not already know, or what they may or may not wish to link to. Given that large aspects of the related guidelines are under discussion right now, it makes sense to avoid widespread automated removal of these links until consensus is reached. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• It might "make sense" if there had been more than a few objections out of thousands, but the plain fact is that the changes have been widely accepted without response, except, notably, by you. I still don't understand why your posts consist of no substantive response to my queries and suggestions; instead, you persist with WP:IDONTLIKEIT statements, implying that a lot of other people "don't like it" either. If you came up with good arguments to counter those that have been put by me and others, it might be a different matter. But you simply refuse to engage in substantive debate. That will get nowhere. Tony (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

a small note

heya Lightmouse ... you wrote over on that date-unlinking-brouhaha page "Sssoul proposed bot delinking of calendar dates such as 18 December and described some other features of his proposal." it's no big deal - at least not for most wikipedia purposes! - but i'm a she-sssoul. 8) Sssoul (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Humble apologies. I pride myself on making effort to avoid such errors. I even smugly tell other people how important it is to get into a habit of being neutral on a variety of dimensions. Clearly I need to take my own advice more seriously. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Lightmouse (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

smile: it's not a big deal, Lightmouse! i'm kinda used to it, on the internet, but felt like letting you know. i'm often amused by how often people on the internet assume i must be a male because i dig the Rolling Stones, can tell a Gibson from a Fender, etc. 8) Sssoul (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to distinguish two types of Fender in a band only the other day but as a listener not a player. Lightmouse (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

i'm not a player either - i just dig guitars, so i like to learn about them. i have a particular weakness for vintage Gibsons - but a vintage Fender can sound mighty mighty fine too. i wish i had any gift at all for creating music ... but hey, someone has to listen to it! and being a resonant listener sure gives me great joy. anyway ... swing on, Lightmouse - this date-link brouhaha will sort itself out one of these days, and it will be very cool to see the Great Unlinking. 8) Sssoul (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

me again, Lightmouse! i woke up this morning realizing that your gallant date-unlinking bot is currently designed to unlink only years that are part of full date links, while the little Passover Parallel i put forth out there as a compromise/interim proposal blithely assumes that it could easily be adjusted to unlink calendar dates intead (whether or not they're part of full dates). is that more or less correct? (for the record, i personally favour unlinking years as well, but as i hope is clear i'm trying to propose something that would allow *some* kind of progress with the bot-assisted date-unlinking.) Sssoul (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sssoul, is a compromise necessary at all? The beauty of your proposal is that it's a gift to those who have invested their time in year pages and fear the orphanage (I suspect that this is behind a lot of the opposition to the delinking of solitary years). It's a gift because the current state of affairs is that solitary years should not be linked unless there's a strong reason to do so, with the onus, presumably, on those defending the link to explain and justify the strong reason. It's taking nothing away from the link crowd and provides a very good way to highlight year pages, with gateways into them. The "See also" option removes this need and any tension surrounding the issue and the use of bots/scripts to delink chronological items. This is why it's odd, to me, that any year-page person wouldn't support it. You may, BTW, be interested in bookmarking WT:MOSLINK#Conducting_copy-edit_from_start_to_finish, the engine room of a rewrite of MOSLINK that should include a merging into that page of the largely redundant WP:CONTEXT and the few bits of the bizarre WP:BTW that don't breach our linking rules. The revampted MOSLINK is where I envisage your "See also" option will be located. Tony (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

i sure don't need a compromise - my main aim was to "reframe" the issue, in hopes that more people might see just what you're saying here: that the assorted options that have been pointed out for preserving date links someone cherishes are helpful gifts, in view of current policies, not terrible burdens. it's definitely no skin off *my* nose if no one wants to bother "shielding" their cherished links by putting in a non-date word and moving them to the "see also" section - i was just hoping some people who are resisting the changes might slowly start realizing that the bot is designed to do good, not evil, and that Options X Y and Z are available to preserve the links they love best. meanwhile, i'm off to read those links you've provided - thanks! Sssoul (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer the technical question, the answer is yes. Everything you have suggested so far is capable of being done by bot. Lightmouse (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks Lightmouse! Sssoul (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse my dear, it's me again ... i'm pondering the suggestion that an RFC is needed to establish whether "the community" agrees that existing meaningless date-links should be undone, and if so whether that task should be done by bot. does that kind of RFC sound to you like a necessary and/or worthwhile step? if so i might volunteer to help compose the "starting statement", to try to get it phrased clearly and fairly - but if it's just a wheel-spinning excercise i don't feel like spending much time/effort on it. if an RFC like that *does* seem worthwhile/necessary to you, is dividing it into separate questions (about calendar-date links, about bare-year date links and about whether it should be done by bot) a good way to go? should a question be added about whether or not "the community" accepts script-assisted link removal? (i get the impression that some people don't know the difference between a bot and a script.) and: if an RFC does seem like a worthwhile/necessary step, and if i did get involved in the writing of the starting statement, would you be willing to field some of my questions about how the bot would go about doing the job? i'm not 100% sure i'm picturing it properly. Sssoul (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I feel like we have gone through this many times and regardless of the question we ask, people might answer a different question that they have in their head. Let me think about it for a couple of days. I certainly would be very happy for you to be involved in the starting statement and for me to discuss technicalities of bot operation. I will get back to you. Lightmouse (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sssoul, thanks for your queries and suggestion. I think that having to generate separate consensus to remove features that are recommended against by our style manuals is unnecessary (whether the removal is by bot, script or hand, and whether the proscription is new or old) and that to have an RfC on them is counterproductive. I believe that calls out there for such consensus are merely a ploy by those who don't like the fact that there's a strong trend towards more disciplined linking. Who would ask for Parliament or Congress to vote again to allow the police to clean up drug dens, having already passed a law against the possession of dangerous drugs? Tony (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks Lightmouse & Tony. it seems irrational to me too to claim that an RfC is necessary to confirm that meaningless date-links should be removed, but ... well, people are irrational a lot of the time, and right now the fears people have are standing in the way of the date-unlinking process. if an RfC would help assuage (or override) some of those fears then maybe it's worth having it - i'm not sure. i see real clearly what Lightmouse means about people "answer[ing] a different question that they have in their heads"; i also see real clearly what you mean about it seeming like merely a ploy. so what is the alternative to an RfC - just giving up on the idea of a bot doing the unlinking?

meanwhile my "compromise/interim proposal" out there seems to have attracted two whole objections - one "on principle" and one that seems to boil down to "i can't be bothered earmarking the handful of calendar-date links that i consider profoundly valuable". where did all the editors in the "birth/death-date RfC" go, i wonder ... oh well. Sssoul (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I wonder if we should go ahead with an rfc for a bot to:

• leave solitary years alone and delink all other date components/compounds unless the reader can see a non-date term.
  • blah blah [[1974]] blah blah would not be delinked by the bot because it is a solitary year.
    
  • blah blah [[18 December]] [[1974]] blah blah would be delinked by the bot because the year is not solitary.
  • blah blah [[1974 in aviation]] blah blah would not be delinked by the bot because the reader can see a non-date term.
    

As far as I can see, it is similar to Sssoul's suggestion. What do you think Tony and Sssoul? Lightmouse (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

An RfC is totally unnecessary, since the proscription against the linking of solitary years has been in WP:CONTEXT for some time. Tony (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. I withdraw the suggestion. Lightmouse (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

well ... the proscription is there, but the "objection" being expressed is that there's nothing in the proscription stating "and that means existing solitary-year links should be unlinked". as i've said i think it's irrational to claim that the proscription could possibly mean "but let's keep all the ill-conceived links that we now have", but that seems to be what Shereth wants an RfC to establish. it does seem like wheel-spinning - but i don't know what other options there are that would allow some progress toward getting rid of useless date links.

and for the record, if we did an RfC i'd also hope for:

• blah blah [[18 December]] blah blah would be delinked by the bot because it's a solitary calendar-date link with no apparent value/meaning, but
• blah blah [[18 December|events on 18 December throughout history]] blah blah would not be delinked by the bot because the reader can see a non-date term. Sssoul (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• But this would assume that every single recommendation for or against the usage of patterns specified in our style guides is assumed to be invalid, except for prospective usage. It would assume that style guides are irrelevant to WP as it stands now (only future edits). It's plainly nonsense for anyone to put such a proposal up for testing. In any case, the bot won't delink your second example. What is anyone worried about? Such an RfC is a ridiculous exercise, and I'd give it no oxygen whatsoever. Both of these matters is established in the style guides. Tony (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

as i keep saying, i agree that claiming an RfC is needed for this seems irrational - it's Shereth who's saying an RfC is needed, and if it's going to happen i'd just prefer it to be phrased in a way that's clear, fair, sensible, etc. but okay, i won't go volunteer to help formulate it ... what *do* you view as a way forward on all this, though, since people who fear the bot keep saying "there's no consensus for unlinking"?

meanwhile, yeah i know the bot wouldn't undo my second example - that's what i said and meant. i sure hope it would undo my first one, though, because i think hardly anyone sees any real value to the vast majority of calendar-date links. Sssoul (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just who are all of these editors who plague Shereth about the bot? I'd like to see evidence. In fact, I'll ask for it now. No one complains to me, except for our old friend Ckatz. Tony (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

cancer grows despite chemotherapy

It's three steps forward, two backwards, isn't it. I see you just treated two dates in the article on the ABC, which I've done at least once already, not long ago. Further, my experience at "Recent changes" has shown me that many editors are quite unaware of the new practice WRT both full dates and date fragments. Interesting to see how it evolves. On the other hand, it's pleasing to see that some articles are disease-free and not our doing. Tony (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen articles delinked by more than editor because they were replaced. I think it will take time. My experience with 'Recent changes' is that many of them are linked but I am not sure if it proves editors are unaware. An editor could be aware but might only want to make a small change to an old article. I also see lots of articles with the new style and, like you, I find it pleasing. I have wondered if we need a new angle, perhaps along the lines of Sssoul's proposal for an rfc. Lightmouse (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, I think that such a move would undermine the meaning of the style guides in their entirety WRT all but future edits. Tony (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Perhaps we just need more people delinking. Lightmouse (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about linking dates

Hi Lightmouse, I noticed your edit to LazyTown that linked the dates. I have a question. I know in your edit summary you linked to the MoS article on dates, but there is also this policy: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Personally, I think dates are overlinked on Wikipedia and that a lot of these links don't add anything to the context of the article. For example, how does it add to the LazyTown article to link to whatever else happened on Sept. 15, 2008? Is there a more lengthy discussion on this matter here on Wikipedia that I'm missing? I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to talk with me about it. It's confusing. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I did not link dates in that article. I delinked them. I agree with you that dates are overlinked on Wikipedia and that a lot of these links don't add anything to the context of the article. Lightmouse (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Date script

Hi there! Thanks for your suggestions on getting your date script to work for me. I've tried it on Opera, and it works, so it seems to be a Firefox issue. No idea what, it's all beyond me! --Ged UK (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at your add-ins, extensions etc. If that is too confusing, you could simply delete Firefox and re-install it. Lightmouse (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether you'd mind helping SkyWalker, who's on my talk page now. Tony (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still using Opera to run this script. I haven't had a chance to have a look at what#s causing the problem on FF. I'll let you know if Ifind a problem. --Ged UK (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you tried disabling everything? You can then add them back in one by one. Lightmouse (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for commas

For your info, just fixed your recent edit on West Dean House. You added the convert template, unfortunately the existing quantity had a comma, which upset the template. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I found that out. It was an error in the script and I have corrected it now. I wish the template itself could accept commas but it can't. Thanks for fixing that one and letting me know. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I found another one at Bohemian Grove and fixed it. Perhaps it's worth the trouble to write a script that can go back and pull any commas that are still out there stuck in the templates... Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good idea, I have updated the script and it will remove commas. I will do a search, there shouldn't be many instances though. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

AWB edit to 2007 Caribou Hills fire

The edit you made to this article did not serve its intended purpose of converting the units, instead it inserted a big fat error message into the article, so I have had to undo it. I don't know how to do this myself, or I would just fix it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The template is incapable of handling commas. I have since updated the script. Thanks for spotting that and letting me know. I put the template back into the article but without the comma and it is fine now. Thanks, I appreciate what you did. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot false positive

Hello again Lightmouse - this is the fifth time you have made this edit. I thought we'd resolved it after the fourth time to prevent it from happening again. Please, please give your bot a blacklist or something, so you don't do this again. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. At least now it is within 'blockquote' that should make it easier. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Whitson

Um, I can fully accept that some users may not know or want to know what an acre is. Even that acres, although relevant for the past 700 years, are no longer the statutory measure of land in the UK. But why doesn't you're bot at least use the hectare instead of the square metre? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a bot. It is just me and a monobook script adding metric units that weren't there before. If you don't like square metres, feel free to change them to whatever you think makes the article better. That would be fine by me. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I admire your diligence. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Acres should probably be converted to ha instead of m3 in almost all cases. I would suggest making that the default, then handling the few exceptions manually. Ferritecore (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Ferritecore means m²; apart from that I second Ferritecore's comments as well as that by Martinevans123. I assume these comments and requests stem from Lightmouse's inclusion of the {{convert}} template for acreages. The default metric conversion unit for the acres within the convert template is hectares. Lightmouse please in future if you are to include the convert template in articles for acres, let the default hectares apply or, alternatively, specify hectares. Then editors can change them to whatever you think makes the article better. Thanks. Bleakcomb (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I did mean m² -- thanks. Ferritecore (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sq yds->m²; acres->ha; Sq miles->km². These are the most intuitive for metric/imperial users, e.g. the UK. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job I didn't drag up any perches or roods? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Script modification

Hello. I have a tiny request for you. As per this and the subsequent edits to MOSFILM, do you think you can modify your script to not remove the {{filmyear}} template? Thanks :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that it didn't do this. Can you give me an example please? Lightmouse (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I had accidentally hit the "Delink-year-in-X" button, which is why I accidentally reported this. My apologies. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Delinking Dates using AWB

Hi Lightmouse. I saw that you were using your scriptRegExs to delink dates via AWB, and I wondered if I could help. Could you tell me how you were running your script through AWB?which RegExs you were using? Thanks :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I use modules. Look in the AWB 'Tools' menu, you will see a 'Make module' option. I just add the module there. Have you used that option? Lightmouse (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not know how. However, I looked through your subpages and I found some things that might be it, so I asked on #wikipedia-en-help, and they said to go for it. :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

De-linking script

I noticed that by delinking the common term 'actress', it somehow becomes 'actor'. Please refer to this example. I don't know if there are any similar gender changes in the course of running the script, but wanted to let you know. Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The delink actress->actor function was added by specific request of a user. I believe it was on the basis that 'actor' is considered gender neutral by many people but I can't speak for the request. I have now removed the function. Lightmouse (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not thrilled about this. Many people regard "actress" as sexist. Can you advise how it's rendered now: "actress" delinked or linked? Tony (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is what it does now:

• [[actor]] -> actor
• [[actress]] -> actress
• [[actress|actor]] -> actor
• [[actor|actress]] -> actress

Thus it does not change what the reader currently sees. The way it worked before was the only instance whereby it changed what the reader sees. There is nothing wrong with changing what the reader sees but it is a different concept. Lightmouse (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:AutoWikiBrowser

Hey, Iam a registered user:). Though i have not touch the tools yet maybe tomorrow i make use of that tool. I will let you know and also iam quite afraid of misusing the tool and getting banned. Also i was wondering when i have to delink articles why must i first edit the page why can't the tool show before i edit the page. It would be much easier if the tools was outside without first editing the page because when it comes to large and very large article my browser crashes for few secs. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish I knew how to make the script show before you edit. But I don't know how.

Very large articles take a long time to process with the monobook script. The AWB script is quicker, don't be afraid of using AWB. I will help you get started. You won't get banned if you are sensible. Lightmouse (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Date links per wp:mosnum?

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_links_per_wp:mosnum.3F. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Example of a perhaps-less-than-excellent edit - WoW - 1994 in Video Gaming link removed.

I understand the delinking of years to generic year-links. But removing the Year-in-videogaming link from a video game article? At the least, I think you should be making some comment on these special-purpose links being removed besides your generic note. I am concerned you have gotten careless with a programatic shotgun. sinneed (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it wasn't careless but purposeful, since "concealed" year-in-X links—which look like the low-value blue year links that have infected WP for so long—are unlikely to attract clicks. Please consider a much more prominent and explicit flagging, once: use the "See also" template to add "See also: List of years in videogaming" under the first section in which they might be helpful. This list can then function as an explicit gateway to all of year-in-videogaming pages, and is more likely to attract clicks than a deceptive, solitary piped year link. Tony (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• blink* "deceptive". Erm. No. In any event... why didn't he do that instead of killing the link? I look forward to your edit. sinneed (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's deceptive because it doesn't tell the reader the true destination. This is against the recommendation at MOSLINK. I didn't realise that a link remained after the edit. Tony (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Linkage Problems

It appears that AWB is removing the [[2008 in radio|2008]] links as if they were regular [[2008]] links, as with this edit to the WNNT-FM page. I am not sure if you can alter the way AWB picks the dates or not, but just something to look out for. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 21, 2008 @ 16:27

Hi, it would be better if such a link were not concealed. It is a shame that readers don't know that it is not just another solitary year to be ignored. Many projects (and perhaps even the Wikipedia Manual of Style) are actually recommending that concealed links should not be used. Rather than concealing the link, can you make it look less like a solitary year so that it won't be ignored? Lightmouse (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are meaning, but the problem for me anyway, is that 2008 in radio looks goofy by itself. Having it as a WikiLink works, but not for MOS standards. I am unsure what to do. The best idea is to mark them all 2008 in radio.....but I am unsure on that one. What are your thoughts? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 21, 2008 @ 16:55

I don't think it looks goofy. As long as it contains a non-date word, it will be obvious to the reader that it is not a solitary year. You could try:

• [[2008 in radio]]
• [[2008 in radio|radio events in 2008]]
• [[2008 in radio|see 2008 in radio]]

or anything you want. Personally, I would make it 'what you see is what you get' (wysiwyg) and use [[2008 in radio]]. It is up to you. Good luck! Lightmouse (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe going with something like this...

• [[2008 in radio|2008 (in Radio)]]

....to me, it looks "not weird" :) and wouldn't look like non-solitary year link. Before I go nuts and start updating pages, I have put this before WP:WPRS for their input as well (kinda standard procedure with radio station articles), I will let you know what the outcome of the discussion is. Thanks for your input, I appericate it. :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 21, 2008 @ 21:18

Pardon me for jumping in, but I'm responding to the discussion that NeutralHomer started at WP:WPRS. Lightmouse, the link that you removed in the diff shown above, as well as [3] at the WTEM article, satisfy an infobox line for "First air date", so the most logical thing to appear there is a year. Fortunately, there are articles that can be linked from that year that provide context and add value for a reader. While it's unfortunate that the resulting links aren't completely intuitive, piped links are not uncommon in the least, as I'm sure you're aware. I know that both you and your bot account have been working on delinking bare dates since they were deprecated at MOS. While I don't necessarily agree that deprecate = pro-actively remove, I have a lot of respect for the enormous amount of hard work and effort that you've put into this, and I think that the degree of flack you've taken over this is unfortunate. However, this isn't the same as the bare dates, and there really isn't a reason in this situation to remove them. We'll brainstorm other ways to reflect the link that are more intuitive, but if you could be careful not to remove similar links as you continue your project, it would be greatly appreciated. Mlaffs (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

CleanBot

Hey, If there are any specifics with AWB in relation to this bot, give me a shout, and i'll try and help out. That plugin could do unlimited or up to 100k pages, etc.

The redirect problem you've found can at least be ignored.

However, a better workaround for this, would be

* list=allpages (ap) *
  Enumerate all pages sequentially in a given namespace
Parameters:
  apfrom         - The page title to start enumerating from.
  apprefix       - Search for all page titles that begin with this value.
  apnamespace    - The namespace to enumerate.
                   One value: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 100, 101
                   Default: 0
  apfilterredir  - Which pages to list.
                   One value: all, redirects, nonredirects
                   Default: all
  apminsize      - Limit to pages with at least this many bytes
  apmaxsize      - Limit to pages with at most this many bytes
  apprtype       - Limit to protected pages only
                   Values (separate with '|'): edit, move
  apprlevel      - The protection level (must be used with apprtype= parameter)
                   Can be empty, or Values (separate with '|'): autoconfirmed, sysop
  aplimit        - How many total pages to return.
                   No more than 500 (5000 for bots) allowed.
                   Default: 10
  apdir          - The direction in which to list
                   One value: ascending, descending
                   Default: ascending
  apfilterlanglinks - Filter based on whether a page has langlinks
                   One value: withlanglinks, withoutlanglinks, all
                   Default: all

And not even load the "redirects" by setting apfilterredir=nonredirects

I could write you a custom all page provider for this, would not be very much work at all.

Oh, and create the bot a userpage ;)

—Reedy 22:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

2300 AD and 2000 AD

Take care because 2300 AD is a game and not a date. 2000 AD is a disamb page -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that but can you give me an example edit where it has been a problem? Lightmouse (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't make a mistake. I am right now using a module and I notice that an automatic change is impossible because of that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I am confused. Either:

• there is a problem with code and I need to take action to fix it

or

• there is no problem with code and I can do nothing

I assume the former because of your first comment. However your last comment sounds like the latter. Please can you let me know which one it is? Lightmouse (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with code. It unlinks 2300 AD and 2000 AD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. If you are aware of any others, just tell me. Refresh your cache and test it. If you don't notice a change, it will probably be because the Wikipedia mirrors have not synchronised yet and you will need to wait an hour or so. Let me know how you get on. Lightmouse (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Heya, I've noticed you've been contributing to articles similar to mine, i.e. related to activist/anarchist people. My article on Bruno Masse is threatened of deletion, could you please vote to keep it? You can vote [| here]. In solidarity! Lkeryl (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Earliest living United States Senator

You missed some dates.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Barbarossa-class ocean liner

In this edit to Barbarossa-class ocean liner you improperly changed the sortkey for a category. Because this is the main article for Category:Barbarossa class ocean liners, the pipe and space ("| ") were added to allow this article to list at the top of the category page. This is a common technique for 'lead' articles of categories. Please ensure that whatever tools you are using do not destroy this type of commonly used and intentional sortkey. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That is strange. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Advice_about_categories_please. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries and category changes

Please use accurate edit summaries, especially when making script-assisted edits. This edit summary is distinctly misleading and the edit wasn't helpful; the pipe and space is a commonly used tool to make the article lead item in a category. Please exercise more caution when making edits. Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The category change is the same behavior mentioned in the post above this. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Advice_about_categories_please. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should cut down on the automation a bit?

have you considered cutting down on the semi-automated editing a bit? judging from the above, your false positive ratio seems awful high (in addition to shaky consensus for the date-based edits). –xeno (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot

The lightbot is auto-deleting carriage returns it deems superfluous, but many pages deliberately have extra carriage returns so that they display properly. I can't help thinking that maybe you should disable that particular function. Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a general fix in AWB. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Any chance of an example edit? Lightmouse (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, check the Revision history of Joshua Hendy Iron Works. You can see how the bot screwed up the page formatting. Gatoclass (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't look good. I will investigate. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reported this but we can't see what is wrong. Would you care to respond at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Possible_line_feed_error. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Link removal

No quarrel with removing links to years, etc., as links like 2005 are against the MOS, but in this edit, you accidentally removed a link to [[2005 in basketball|2005]]. Something's wrong: if you meant to make this edit, the next line of the table has a link to [[2003 in baseball|2003]] which wasn't removed. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So I see. You are right to say that they are either both right or both wrong. I will investigate. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

AWB misuse

Hi, for the time being I have revoked your access to AWB. The reason for this move is that a number of extremely minor, inconsequential edits have originated from your account through the tool. This sort of change, which isn't really important in the grander scheme of the article, is best added to the "general fixes" part of AWB so that the "problem" can be fixed when more effectual bot tasks are run. Please file a bug against AWB to have the fix added to the general fixes. Thanks, Martinp23 15:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems a trifle harsh. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. If he's not going to make that sort of edit again, he's welcome to request the access back either via me or the usual process. Martinp23 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The harshness is partly in the fact that your move is unannounced and left no lattitude for prior communication about it. I do not approve of this method of administrative action. As well, it's vague and unexplained: what kind of trivial, "ineffectual" tasks are you referring to? Tony (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately things are quite reversable here when the issues are resolved. I took this action not so much as an admin (though it required access to admin tools) as a once AWB dev. If you're attempting to suggest that you don't know why I removed the access, you'd be well advised to take a look at the recent contributions of Lightmouse, which illustrate it quite cleanly. Thanks, Martinp23 16:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at Lightmouse's recent contributions and I could not find what you meant. Lightmouse has been essentially running a version of his date unlinking script through AWB. This seems to fit current policy, and I cannot see why this is "ineffectual." NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should have my access revoked as well, I'm doing pretty much the same thing as Lightmouse. No point being inconsistent. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The numerous spectators to this thread will probably find this interesting. Martinp23 12:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why is the delinking of dates, per our Manual of Style, "inconsequential"? Tony (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Because minor edits such as this should be done while doing significant edits (i.e. typo fixing), rather than just racking up a huge edit count making inconsequential changes. –xeno (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I should be banned as an undesirable. Tony (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed; I believe that the proper process involves the setting out of exactly what is at issue, rather than generic assertions without even exemplification. Tony (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Martinp23: I saw that you also revoked access to AClosedmouth's AWB. You cited rules 4 and 5. These rules are "Avoid making insignificant minor edits" and "Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices." I'm not sure I agree with you that the former applies, and I would certainly disagree about the latter. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to argue the point, feel free to use my talk page or (better) email. Martinp23 23:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue resolved (already); see my talk page if anyone is actually interested. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we are again

How cunning of you. I've removed you again, for the same reason, and have added you to the banned users list for AWB. Martinp23 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What do you mean 'cunning'? Lightmouse (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I think you are using your tools for the wrong reasons. You need to explain the reason you have banned Lightmouse from using AWB or I will be forced to report you to AN for misuse of your admin tools. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:17

Lightmouse got his AWB access removed for making a lot of minor edits, including some mistakes, as you can see on this talk page. Afterwards, instead of saying he wouldn't do it anymore or discussing it or something, he goes back to the access page and requesting it again, without mentioning the fact it had been taken away before, and then makes the same sort of edits. I don't think this comes under "misuse of admin tools". Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But the way Martin is going about it does (to me anyway). If Lightmouse is making good edits, even if they are minor, I don't see the problem. Isn't that what AWB is used for? Making quick work of lots of minor edits? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:29

He has been removed for exactly the same reasons as above, and the same reason that Closedmouth and Nuclearwarfare were removed. You can look at the reasons on their talk pages too if you like. I am abusing no tools - were I not an AWB dev, I wouldn't be removing him. That position affords me a degree of discretion, and I have explained and justified my reasons fully. You might like to familiarise yourself with the AWB rules too. Martinp23 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Being that I barely understand how AWB works, I will forego looking at the rules. But if Lightmouse is making edits that aren't goofing anything up and are doing good, what is the harm? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:36

As you can see from several threads on this talk page, he has a high false positive rate (due to running it in a semi(?)automated fashion), and he is making inconsequential edits that bog down recent changes for stuff that doesn't really matter that much - i.e. minor fixes that should be done alongside other more necessary changes. The quietly re-requesting AWB access without addressing any of this doesn't help either. –xeno (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To me he seems to be trying to fix those problems. Again, I don't know much about AWB. But I think an outright ban, even if he didn't address that his access was removed, is a little harsh and with Martin removing access from other users for the same reason (like Closedmouth who brought up that he makes the same edits) is pushing things. Martin could be explaining how to fix those false positives, not blocking access. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:50

Edits such as this are not permitted via AWB. He was given advice on how such edits could be worked into the general fix matrix of AWB, and should pursue that approach. –xeno (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, for someone who doesn't understand AWB that much....why aren't they allowed? If he could work those edits into the "general fix matrix", could he have AWB access back? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:55

See Wikipedia:AWB#Rules of use. I would gather that if Lightmouse agreed to only make such inconsequential changes in addition to necessary changes (such as typo fixing), Martin would be amenable to re-granting his access. –xeno (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to work with Lightmouse and Closedmouth to make sure they make the minor and necessary edits so they can get AWB access back. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 17:03

It's as simple as turning typo fixing on and skipping the article when no typo is fixed. Closedmouth has already had his access re-granted and is going forward with this in mind. –xeno (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as everyone has access back to AWB, then I am happy :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 17:08

NeutralHomer, while your diligence is appreciated, it would be an idea to look at the rules if you haven't thus far. They're quite comprehensible for any user - AWB user or not, and fully justify my actions. I consider myself to have acted completely properly. It might be appropriate to bring up a discussion on my talk page if you have any specific issues to bring up with me about it. Martinp23 20:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I left a couple messages on his talk page about his unilaterally revoking users access to AWB.--Kumioko (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Another topic

On another topic, the bot is borking up links like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ton&diff=prev&oldid=244585524 - BalthCat (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not a bot edit. Lightmouse (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)