Jump to content

User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2009/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks for your extraordinary contribution

The Special Barnstar
Your leadership in the development and implementation of automated and semi-automated means of improving articles deserves this token of thanks. I hope the project continues to benefit from your expertise, sensitivity and hard work in 2009. Tony (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Lightmouse (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

~*YEAH!*~ thanks & praises for all your patient and courteous good work, Lightmouse. have a fine time seeing in a beautiful 09. Sssoul (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Each positive thought expressed openly is worth 1000 negative ones. Those three very nice comments will keep me going for some time. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot

Have you asked Jayron32 (talk · contribs)? It is customary to ask the blocking admin first. What sort of things would it be doing? Regards, Woody (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I will ask him/her. I haven't decided what it will be doing. Lightmouse (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for being understanding on this. As I said before, I don't see a problem in principle with a bot doing these sorts of edits. But we first need to establish exactly what the guidelines say about this first; since they are in conflict we should come up with some way to unify them. I would be interested in hearing your input at the RFC (if you have not already done so). Anyhoo, your bot is now unblocked, and I see no problem with setting it off on any of the other great jobs it does besides this one. Toodles! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. It's him... Later... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and P.P.S. It hasn't been blocked for some time. I only gave it a 24 hour block to stop it until you had a chance to shut it down. It's been free to edit for quite a while now... At least since you asked me to unblock ... ;) Anyhoo. Later... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for having made it only a 24 hour block. I understand this is a technical issue due to mismatching guidance. I have made a couple of contributions to the RFC already and will continue to be involved in that. Thanks also for the kind words and your polite interaction. Lightmouse (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Like this. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The guidance at wp:overlink says not to link:
  • Plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).
I hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It also removed the link to the letter M in the article latin alphabet. Since there are a lot of articles linking to the letter M, a check should be added if the [[m]] is preceded by a number. The same risk exists for the many other single-letter units. −Woodstone (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will investigate further. Lightmouse (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A related problem happened to article [[Ft]], where in section "See also", [[FT]] was unlinked. Again a case that can be solved by checking presence of a preceding number. The list of 26 letters mentioned below by another complaining user is of course the same as above latin alphabet. −Woodstone (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have fixed [[Ft]]. For some reason, people often report problems without giving a link. As a procedure, I always want a problem report to be associated with a link. This is because there is often useful information in the link that is useful for the coding but has not been reported. This is now a known issue, no need to report further instances. Your feedback has been very useful, thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the metre links removed from impedance of free space concerned the definition of that unit; it wasn't just a usage of the unit with a gratuitous link. Is there some way of blocking Lightbot with a hidden comment or the like? --catslash (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't have happened. I have added some code to avoid it in future. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A recent edit by Lightbot to Template:Hadrosaur tree removed a link to meter that caused the imagemap to become nonfunctional. Can it be stopped from doing so again in the future? J. Spencer (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It can. But what do you mean by 'nonfunctional'? Lightmouse (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Non-functional as in right royally screws it up: it stops the imagemap from working. Woody (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I accept your word that it stops it working but I am curious about it. The link to the page metre isn't visible in the template. Can you tell me where it goes? Lightmouse (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Take my word for it, you get a big Error: no valid link was found at the end of line 19 error message! ;) I presume it is the key that is linked, not sure though, I know nothing about imagemaps. Woody (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The imagemap is supposed to link to the articles of the dinosaurs depicted, although for some reason it's only linking to Shantungosaurus (I don't know how it works, either). The scale bar is probably where the meter link is supposed to be, and not having it linked within the code makes the template produce the error message. I'm going to have to ask around to figure out why the rest of it is not doing what it should. J. Spencer (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The original version must have been at a different scale, because the imagemaps were way off in space. The meter link is indeed supposed to go with the scale bar. I can remove any link altogether by removing its line of coding. J. Spencer (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

overlinking

I don't think it's a very prevalent problem, but I thought I would just mention that have come across instances, such as in March 2005 in Hong Kong and Macao, where there are links to days of the week. Usually, I would tend to simply remove DotW where it may say 'Tuesday, 2 January 2009', because it's seldom an important detail. It just goes to show some people will go to stupid lengths to link to something when it can be linked to. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good example. The answer is complicated. Try to follow my explanation:
  • I occasionally do a 'What links here' for days of the week and purge them as a special task. There are one or two other editors that do that. I look for days in full ('Monday') and as 3-letter abbreviations ('Mon'). That article has 2-letter abbreviations ('Mo') and that is why it never got purged. As we get more successful at delinking 'normal' links, these abnormal links will start to become visible to us (like rubbish being revealed by a receding tide).
  • The monobook script is programmed to delink days in full ('Monday') and as 3-letter abbreviations ('Mon'). I have now updated it to delink any length of redirect. Clear your cache and try it on that article (if it doesn't work, just wait an hour or so for the mirror servers to update and clear your cache again).
  • The previous AWB scripts to delink dates did not include delinking days of the week. That is because the hit rate was low in proportion to false positives (valid links in 'Thor', 'Odin' etc). It was easier to keep it as a special task and not worry about them in the main date delinking task.
  • As you know, the monobook script is now the master and that has code to delink days of the week, so its children AWB scripts will do that too. Thus you and I now have a new task of watching for this class of false positives. I have tried this in the past and it is a pain.
  • If you look at 'What links here', you will see that there are fewer than 500 links to each day of the week article. Only a few of those are excessive. My thought I should remove the day of the week code from all current scripts. This would eliminate an entire class of false positives. I can then create a special 'delink days of the week' AWB script for you and me to use. The same applies to months.
What do you think? Lightmouse (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As you may be aware, I have delinked thousands of articles, and have only come across a small handful of the DotW links. Bearing in mind the small scale of the problem, I agree it would make sense to remove this function altogether from monobook as false positives will become more prevalent. I certainly don't think it worth the effort to write a whole new script for purging these DotW links, but if the lines of code could be recycled, there may be occasional use for it.

That said, I would still like to be able to find cases where it said 'Tuesday, 2 January 2009', and have the DotW automatically stripped down to '2 January 2009', because the DotW acutually has little use or significance. Perhaps that is a job better left for Regexes within AWB. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the days of the week function from the master. The function still exists in the children but will be removed when I synch them. So you will still have to watch for false positives until they have been synched. I have created User:Lightmouse/AWB/scripts/days of the week and we can use that code for occasional purges. I may do the same for solitary months. I could create code for 'Tuesday, 2 January 2009' but you would also want all the other permutations like 'Tuesday, January 2 2009'. Feel free to put it on the wishlist. Lightmouse (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Category sortkeys

Please do not remove leading spaces from category sort keys as User:Lightbot did in this edit. As a reminder, this issue was raised with you, Lightmouse, before (in two threads) and, as I recall, discussed on an MOS page at your behest (although I cannot find the link at this time). — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the reoccurance, it must be in AWB General fixes because it isn't in my code (although I am indeed responsible for the edits). I will raise the issue at AWB. Lightmouse (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Leading_spaces_in_category_sort_keys. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot BC BCE

Can Lightbot be programmed to change BC to BCE in dates? --KP Botany (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because it would goes against the MOS and cause a hell of shit storm! Look how heated it gets with just unlinking dates. It's best to just leave this alone. —MJCdetroit (yak) 04:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I also realized (uh, after it was pointed out to me) that there may be some cases where you'd want to use BC rather than BCE. What's the MOS say on dates? I thought it would prefer BCE which is rather standard these days. --KP Botany (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
From the MOS section about BC/BCE AD/CE: It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.
Unless it's an article like Moses or Mohammad, BC should not be changed especially en mass by a bot. These things should be done individually with reasoning given on the talk page of the article. —MJCdetroit (yak) 05:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for going and grabbing the quote. Hmmm. --05:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have the answer. No. Sorry. But suggestions are always welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

'Eighteenth century'

Your bot has delinked the term 'eighteenth century' in at least two articles (Nationalism and Nationalism studies), and I don't understand why. In both cases, it is useful for the reader to be able to read about the eighteenth century in general in order to get a greater sense of the historical context of these two subjects. Could you please explain your reasoning? – SJL 00:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The guidance at Wikipedia:CONTEXT#Dates says:
  • Chronological items—such as days, years, decades and centuries—should generally not be linked unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic.
It has been extensively discussed many times. However, if you disagree, don't my word for it or the guidance. Feel free to ask other people at wt:mosnum for an opinion about those articles. I hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, but my point is that in this case there clearly is a need for linking to the article on the eighteenth century, as it is "demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic." I can see why using the bot to delink numerical dates would be helfpul, but I imagine that the majority of linked centuries are there for a reason. – SJL 05:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
In the ideal world, where such an article is genuinely capable of providing a proper context, yes. Although the 'eighteenth century' article isn't as useless in this respect as the date articles (collectively), it merely contains a collection of trivia which is of doubtful use in deepening understanding of the article linked to it ostensibly for that purpose. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on two grounds. First, the quality of the article being linked to does not determine whether linking to an article on that subject is useful (if that were true, nobody would ever link to stubs, and those stubs would never be developed as a consequence). Second, in this particular case, knowing that the eighteenth century includes the French, American, and industrial revolutions, for example, is helpful to someone who is researching nationalism and its study. Situating social phenomena in a time line is often very useful in explaining them. – SJL 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
We are not discussing quality. We are discussing relevance. The current method of most articles about chronological items do not provide real context. For an exception, see 1345. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot: possible to be more constructive?

Today Lightbot made two edits that showed on my Watchlist. Frankly, I think the edits are rather useless. Would it be possible to make other improvements to articles while doing "Units/dates/other"? Then the bot would be a little more constructive. The bot may have approval for the current edits, but I just felt like I had to let you know that the edits do not sit well with me. Regards, --Commander Keane (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that the edits don't 'sit well with you'. As you say, the bot is approved and there have been extensive discussions at wt:mosnum for years about this issue. You may not have encountered it in your articles before, but Lightbot has done many tasks prior to this one. It will continue to do many tasks after this one. I think the bot is useful and constructive but I respect your alternative opinion. I try to combine tasks where I can (believe me, I prefer to reduce article processing) but it makes the code more complicated and reduces the ratio between hits and false positives. The cost of false positives is much higher than cost of repeat edits. With mass edits like this one, it is safest to keep it simple by only doing one task at a time. Thanks for the suggestion though. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You can also turn off bot edits on your watchlist if they annoy you. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough reply Lightmouse. Don't worry, I have encountered Lightbot a lot! And Closedmouth, I know you can turn off bots for the watchlist, but I like to see what bots are doing so I do not create more work for them when working on future articles :-) I don't know where to suggest new Toolserver tools, but perhaps a tool could be created that takes an article name and shows the edits that bots can be are expected to do. For example at Whaling in Australia the tool could have shown that the years need delinking, that "Twentieth century" needed delinking etc. That way humans can use the tool to bring the articles up to the current style guideline and give bot operators a break.--Commander Keane (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for the positive follow-up. I don't know about tools either. However, if you look at Wikipedia:Peer review you will see the phrase:

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review ...

That may be the kind of thing you mean. I saw it before but the coding was beyond me. Lightmouse (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I cannot agree with Commander Keane more as to the uselessness of the edits he pointed out. Am I correct in understanding that he believes humans should make those changes? These useless edits are what bots do best, and I am sorry they do not sit well with him. I delink dates too, and I am glad I don't have to do them by hand, one by one. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I must concur with Commander Keane. I don't remember seeing any clear consensus emerge at the date linking RFC for the kind of edits your bot is making. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


It would be helpful if you could provide an example and I can investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Pick any article where your bot is indiscriminately removing year links. For example, Latymer Upper School, where I have twice had to revert it for removing a link in the introduction to the article. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for the example. Now we can see what the issue is. Firstly, a reader would have to want to click on the link '1624'. Secondly, they would have to learn something of relevance to the article. Things of relevance to the article should be the in origin article itself. The only section of relevance is a repeat of something in the origin article. Lightmouse (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are completely off the mark with your second and third points. Firstly, believing that you know what the reader wants is a bad idea. The number of potential reasons for clicking on a year link is as large as the number of potential readers of the article. Secondly, your idea of "relevant only" is fatally flawed. When I follow year links it's because I want to know what happened in that year. In this case, I am able to find out that in the same year that the school I went to was founded, Cardinal Richlieu was appointed as an adviser by Louis XIII. Is that relevant to Latymer Upper School? No, not at all. But it enriched my knowledge as a reader, and that kind of freeform learning is something you seem dead set on preventing. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


I am not set against preventing anything. The points you make were all made in the recent RFC at wt:mosnum and debated extensively there. Since your points are about date linking policy, perhaps that is where this discussion belongs. Lightmouse (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. My point was not to bring the discussion here, but that the recent RFC did not conclusively demonstrate consensus that dates should be delinked. Until such a consensus is clear, you should not be running a bot that performs this activity. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Earle, we've spent months debating the usefulness of these links to chronological articles. There were two RfCs on it, and I think that the consensus is quite clear. Our Featured Articles and Featured Lists have already implemented this change months ago. Numerous editors voiced support for the change even before it happened—see User:Tony1/Support for the removal of date autoformatting. Indeed, if you want to bring the subject up again, feel free, but don't be surprised if you see a rash of editors suppressing a discussion that has been brought up many times. It is time to move on. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
"It is time to move on"? How patronizing. I certainly will be bringing the subject up again. And as I pointed out above, no overwhelming consensus was displayed in the RfCs that year links should be expunged in their entirety. I don't know also why you're pointing at some discussion of autoformatting which has nothing to do with the point here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


1930s

Hi, your bot did some "cleanup" recently which might be "less than desirable" -- can such be prevented? I, for myself, do not really care, but I think the rules are that an article where non-free media are used has to be linked from the rationale "somehow". Best, [w.] 18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You think it is 'less then desirable'. I think it is desirable and improves the article. You may be interested to note that guidance at Wikipedia:CONTEXT#Dates says:
  • Chronological items—such as days, years, decades and centuries—should generally not be linked unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic. Articles about other chronological items or related topics are an exception to this guideline.
If you don't care, then perhaps you will accept an edit from somebody that does. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
W, although I'd agree this this isn't a good edit, it's ultimately not a problem in this case. It looks like that image was removed from the 1930s article back on December 2nd, so the fair use rationale is no longer needed.
That being said, Lightmouse, please have another look at the diff that W provided — the edit that the bot made was to remove a link to the article from the file namespace. Had the image not already been removed from the article, the effect of this would have been to break the fair use rationale for the use of that image within the article. This definitely falls outside of Wikipedia:CONTEXT#Dates. I suspect that your bot is coded to skip past the Image namespace, and it may just need to be updated to also skip past the File namespace now that the namespace has been converted. I've seen that change cause problems in other areas as well. Mlaffs (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. It was a bad edit. I have stopped the bot from doing that now. I haven't time to respond in detail right now, I may want to discuss the nature of file namespace etc a bit more when I have time. Thank you very much for the feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just clicked the "talk" link next to your name...because it was there. Carry on. —MJCdetroit (yak) 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you got the humor in that. :) —MJCdetroit (yak) 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't understand what you mean. I shrugged and then didn't give any more thought. Now that you have prompted me again, I think you are referring to where I said "Do you believe that people will click on the link just because it is there?". Now I get it. - small smile - Lightmouse (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Onlinesoures

Hi I've just reverted a removal of wikilinked date (example), since the preseeding text states otherwise. Maybe both should be changed (haven't looked at it since I'm only on my mobile). Happy edititing! Nsaa (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nsaa, I have changed both the date and the corresponding text, so everything should be good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Has everything changed?

Has everything gone weird on Wikipeida i.e. the headings are no longer bold and the font's changed, or have I bugged up my options some how? Ryan4314 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Recommend you delete cookies, etc.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, all fixed now. Firefox accidentally "zoomed in" Ryan4314 (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot unlinking of solitary years

Since solitary years may be linked on rare occasions, what provision exists to prevent Lightbot from visiting the same article over and over again, and unlinking solitary years, even if the editors of the article have determined that a solitary year link is appropriate? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to hear a good argument for keeping a solitary year-link. One way of protecting the odd one (I think) is to pipe it. It's very important that housecleaning on WP involve treatment from time to time of an article. Editors are not perfect and deserve automated assistance. Tony (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Lightmouse, is it still the case that the bot passes over date links that include a nondate term, so that something like [[1943|Other notable events of 1943 <!--do not unlink-->]] can be placed in an article's "see also" section, or in a "see also" line appended to a paragraph? which also alerts human editors that the link was deliberate, valued by someone, etc. Sssoul (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not currently true. But it could be made to be true. Lightmouse (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.)I don't think piping would do as Lightbot's currently configured, Tony, as I know I've seen it remove piped links to 'year-in-X' articles — that may only have been in the context of broken autoformatting, though. If piping would work, that would be a great solution, as would commenting as was just suggested. I'm slowly getting sold on the idea that removing these links is useful bot work, but I still worry about the collateral damage. I don't want to sound like a fiend for date linking, but I do think it's important that we find a way to ensure that, where a bot — any bot — removes a solitary year-link as part of a mass clean-up and an editor (in all reasoning and good judgment) does find that rare case where restoring the link provides valuable context, the bot doesn't overrule that editor's judgment and later remove the link again. Otherwise, there's no point in our style manual saying that solitary years should rarely be linked — we might as well say never, ever, ever under any circumstances. I know you haven't heard a good argument yet, but I don't think even you would say that it's completely impossible for a year link to ever be useful, would you? Mlaffs (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
A recent RFC rejected the notion that "year links should never be made". About 35 editors supported the idea that years should never be linked, while about 64 expressed some degree of support for year linking (even if only very rarely). If Lightbot repeatedly unlink years and offers no recourse to protect linked years, it is in violation of consensus and measures will have to be taken to bring it into compliance with the consensus. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Lightbot is deleting links to decade articles, such as 1920s and 1960s, but these deletions really ought to be done manually, as some of them are legitimate. For instance, removing this link to 1960s in the article The Longest Day (film) seems correct, since it's just a generic reference, but this one, in the hatnote to the article on the film The Roaring Twenties, is completely legitimate. If there's some way to have the bot make this differentiation, that would be great, but if not, perhaps it should stop making those types of edits. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You make a fair point. A title like that is somewhat of a clue, although not always reliable either way. I will retune the bot to be more conservative. Thanks for the feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the response. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've requested arbitration over this date delinking situation and the conduct of those involved. You are named as a party. Please see here. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Date linking

I've found another place where removing date links may be a problem, though thankfully it seems the bot hasn't reached this corner of wikipedia yet. For all I know, maybe you have already made an exception of these articles. On behalf of the Years WikiProject, if you could have the bot avoid all articles that are timelines, that would save us a big headache. It is certainly "in context" to have a wikilink from one timeline to another. Whatever exceptions there may be we can work out manually. Thanks so much for your help. Wrad (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Most articles under the Category:Chronology would probably qualify. Wrad (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to answer your question at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)&diff=263361437&oldid=263356558 Feel free to respond there. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs—I would like your opinion, especially on the draft on the proposed guidelines of linking chronological items. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

XXXX in film

Thanks for the work you do on dates. Lightbot just adjusted the dates on the article American Standoff. While nearly all of these were great changes, it made a change to one Wikilink which (I think) should not have been made. In the infobox, the film release date is listed as "2002". A wikilink to "2002 in film" was made. Lightbot removed this link, but I think that change should not have been made. I wanted to make you aware of how Lightbot interprets these links, and undoes them. Since the WikiProject Films folks are the ones who designed and approved the infobox, and they wish this link to appear, I would think Lighbot should not undo that link. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Except, the project does not say to make such links at all. It explicitly notes that the date should use {{Start date}} and WP:MOSFILM explicitly notes to not use links to the "xxxx in film" indiscriminately. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive feedback. A point of clarification: it was not a bot edit by Lightbot. It was a human edit by Lightmouse. However, I note what you are saying and the response by Collectonian. The article is in 'Category:2002 films'. I think there was some discussion somewhere about this being a duplication and I think the guidance is that such links should generally be explicit rather than concealed. A concealed link that looks just like another boring solitary year link is likely to be ignored as such. Lightmouse (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think I have anything new to add that hasn't already been said several times over the years in all the various forums. But I will watch the debate. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The following temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking;

Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're aware that your edits just now violated this injunction? Wizardman 16:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Please can you give an example of what you mean. Lightmouse (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise." This means that you can't use AWB to delink dates. It looks like you just did it on the one edit [1], so you're alright. (i saw the awb diffs and picked that one at random to look at first, go figure.) You're fine, though make sure you're careful. Wizardman 17:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question at WT:MOSNUM

You asked,

Would you […] support [expanding the authority of Lightbot to perform] removal of autoformatted links?

My answer: Yes.---Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the response. Lightmouse (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
here's another "yes", for what it's worth Sssoul (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you already know my support is there too. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Record of the United States

I saw you were the last user to edit that page, which has been flagged for lack of neutrality for awhile. I went ahead and tried to clean it up and I was wondering if I could eliminate the POV notice now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyojah (talk • contribs) 05:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Lightmouse (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot problem

I may just be repeating others, but your bot has messed up the first line of the TradeMe article with this edit. I can't get the stupid {{as of}} template to work (it seems that if it is possible to do so it's certainly not worth the effort), so I'm just reverting it. Hopefully it won't be back to 'repair' my change. Richard001 (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with that article. Have you looked at the guidance at Template:As of? Lightmouse (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Date templates for bots

I've created {{dmy}} and {{mdy}} in the hopes that it could make future automated maintenance easier. My idea is to incorporate these into the relevant scripts, so that we can potentially insert these templates to the top of any given article when work is done to unify the formats. This would indicate, in the body of the article, that work has been done to convert all dates (exc ISO) to a given format. Down the line, a bot can be programmed to maintain all those articles which have been so tagged, converting incorrectly formatted dates inserted subsequently. The tags can remain invisible, as at present, or they can be made to insert markers of some description like the star at the top of each featured article. What do you think? I have already started using it - see here Ohconfucius (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea. In fact, it might be combined with information about English language variant. It would be worth asking for other opinions. Lightmouse (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There may be a large overlap, but I see WP:ENGVAR as a quite separate guideline to follow. I do not want for Lightbot (or Lightbot2) to be limited to ENGVAR articles, nor be stuck in disputes if we sought to incorporate ENGVAR changes too. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it's because most of the potential opposition is focussed on the Arbitration case, but judging from the small number of respondants, the proposal doesn't seem to arouse many strong passions one way or another -certainly not controversy. Perhaps you could insert a line of code in your script to check for such tags and insert one if not there already, and then apply to WP:BAG for Lightbot to maintain articles already pre-tagged (or would you prefer using categories?) as I suggested. I will go back on all my delinked articles and add the tag to all those which I did before Friday. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This is clever, Ohconfucius. You do have a flare, I must say! I'm trying to think of potential hitches, but can't at the moment. Tony (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible. I come across a lot of templates and it is not always easy to work out what they are. Do you think the template could be more explicit e.g. {{dateformat dmy}} and {{dateformat mdy}} ?

My suggestion was just an example. I think {{Use mdy dates}} is fine. It makes no difference to performance if a category is used instead or in addition. Can we get input from a few more stakeholders on this? Lightmouse (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about the date format *and* ENGVAR bit, I wonder if it might not be possible to create a "format rules" type template...something like {{Use|mdy|US}}, {{Use|dmy|Aus}}, or {{Use|dmy|Can}}. Would solve both types of problems, and allow for potentially-unlimited expansion of bot-recognized auto-formatting should the need arise. It would also eliminate any potential confusion regarding linking a template's name and function, as has been considered above. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Interesting. So ENGVAR would just be a parameter in the template? Just thinking - would {{Use mdy dates|US}} work - not as simple to type, I know? I've already put in maybe four hundred of those... we can always send a bot around to change them later, I guess. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it would be a blank template like the one you created. Each parameter would indicate a bot-readable function. I suppose yours would work too, but I think there may be some confusion when "|US" or whatever gets tagged on. I think mine would be less ambiguous. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If I were running Lightbot to enforce dmy, I would simply program Lightbot to search for the defined string. Similarly with mdy. It doesn't have to be a template, it could be a category, it doesn't even have to be either of those. We only need to define the string and ensure it is unique. Unless I am missing something. I know how to apply any given string using AWB. I don't yet know how to make the monobook script do it but I think it can be done, I am looking for advice on that. Lightmouse (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. Just like {{dmy}}, this "template" will not do anything...it simply provides a bot-readable format that every editor should find comfortable implementing. The documentation will show what parameters (and variations thereof) should be universally accepted, so bot owners can program accordingly. Lightmouse, is parameter order important for bots, or can any given parameter be in either place? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A good summary. The code is simpler if parameter order is fixed but it isn't a big deal to add the code for variable order if required. It would also be possible to start with a basic template for dates and add parameters later. Lightmouse (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, this was just my suggestion for a clean way for bots to detect such stuff, I'll leave the particulars to those who will actually be using this functionality. Though, I'm always happy to help when possible...I'm better at design and style than implementation. :P — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
On the whole this seems like a great idea. I certainly can't think of any faults, and I can only hope it could be used to maybe get the *blank blank* referencing format fixed if/when the templates find some consistency (would certainly remove at least part of the excuse of having no way to tell what format the article uses). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm in complete agreement with those before me – I must commend Ohconfucius for an excellent idea here. Although diversity, as Huntster mentions, is something that could be looked at with regards to different articles pertaining to different countries (where issues may arise, like Australia for example). Caulde 15:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems like a great idea. --John (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dates within quotes

Ohconfucius' suggestion that "down the line, a bot can be programmed to maintain all those articles which have been so tagged, converting incorrectly formatted dates inserted subsequently" does not seem workable, unless it is restricted to dates that are within a clear context, such as an infobox. This is because bots can't tell if a date is within a direct quotation or not. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A fair point. However, the template would permit a bot to identify mismatched date formats. A human can then decide if a change is justified. An unsuperivised bot could process thousands articles easily. Lightmouse (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
For quotes, I think the simplest option is that for articles with a certain quotation to protect, we simply so not tag them, or tag them {{date in quote}}. A category could be created so those articles so tagged can be operated on manually or semi-automatically. Without actually going through he exercise, there is no way of knowing how prevalent this is. Even so, the date format within the quote may be identical to the format of the rest of the article, or in a form which is not operated on by LM's scripts (viz July the fourth, 1776) – no problem here.
That same issue will also raise its head for date-autoformatting. Although humans would have given an article the first pass and tagged it {{use dmy dates}} or somesuch, this necessity to keep quotes sacrosanct implies that bots can usually not be used to maintain the article, and if this was the universal rule, it would defeat the whole point of my proposal to have this boring job to be performed by bot (not AWB). If we were to tag them irrespective, dates within quotations in certain date formats would need to be protected from our bots and from DA.
I cannot (and don't think we ought to) speak for programmers involved in "son of DA", but we ourselves would need to designate an invisible code, possibly something like "<!--quotedate--> July 4th, 1776<!--/quotedate-->" to be manually inserted into quotations. We would possibly also need to tell maintenance-bot to ignore dates within {{quotation}}, {{cquote}} etc - my concern here is that if the quote is cited, the date in the reference will also also be protected even though we may not want it to be. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Editors are not currently trained to mark dates within quotations in any special way. Also, they are not currently trained to look for any kind of template or category that describes an article's date format for the purpose of deleting it or changing it in the event they add a quotation containing a date. Training all the editors to do this would be a big job. The only option I can see is to include a timestamp in the date format template, and ignore the template if the timestamp of the template/category is older than the most recent edit (which of course would greatly reduce the utility of the template/category). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are suggestions that interest me:

  • a feature of the template that indicates at least one mismatch accepted by a previous audit. For example, the normal template could be {{Use|dmy}} and the template with one mismatch could be: {{Use|dmy|1}}
  • a timestamp for the audit e.g. {{Use|dmy|2009-01-14}}
  • We could have both features: {{Use|dmy|1|2009-01-14}}

I think mismatches will be rare. Another method would be to maintain lists of articles containing mismatches: whitelist(dmy); and whitelist(mdy). Another alternative is to regard the template as (like language variant), simply a record of the default format and not for blind enforcement. As I said elsewhere, a human could intervene each time a mismatch is found, this would be no different with processing articles for language variation. The issue for me right now is that I still don't know how to write the code for the monobook script. Lightmouse (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some technical points:

  • 1. The biggest. I don't yet know how to add a template to an article with the monobook script.
  • 2. I don't know how to ignore a date within a big template. So {{cquote}} will not protect a quote.
  • 3. I can ignore a date if the immediately adjacent characters are defined. Your example (<!--quotedate--> July 4th, 1776<!--/quotedate-->) illustrates a principle but the detail would have some problems for me. It had a left arrow adjacent to the '6' and that is fine. You may have intended to put a right arrow adjacent to the 'J' but it isn't, the adjacent character is a space. So I would have to look for two characters either side. That is much more difficult. I think many references use right and left arrows, so those would be incorrect 'misses'.

We don't need a complicated solution. You will have reformatted lots of articles already and I am sure that you will know that valid mismatched date formats are extremely rare. Lightmouse (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For #1, you already have the text of the article as a string and you change text with regular expressions. Adding a template would involve using another regular expression to find the template if it's in the text, and if it's not there: text = '{{template}}\n' + text. You can even use a regex to place a template in some simple locations, like before the first category. For #2, it is possible to find/replace all cquote templates with some special character, keep a list of what's been substituted, then do other work on the article, then restore the templates. That would exclude the cquote templates from changes. Gimmetrow 13:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Your answer to #1 seems reasonable but I don't know the details of how to do the conditional, how to put the whole article in a string, and how to locate the template. Your answer to #2 is also reasonable but I don't know the detail of how to do it, I assume it is similar to the image protection but I don't understand how that works either. I have a version of the script that only affects me: User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test script.js and if you were kind enough to tinker with that or a copy of it, I would be grateful. Lightmouse (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Using your suggestion and that from the kind people at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#How_do_I_use_AWB_to_add_a_template_at_the_top_of_an_article.3F. I have now updated that test script and it will add a template. But it duplicates itself when I revisit the article... Lightmouse (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The text of the article is already in a string - txt.value in most places in your script. Using search works OK. Using RegExp it might look something like: 

//another way
 var retem = new RegExp('\{\{[ ]*[Tt]emplate[ ]*\}\}');
 var finds = retem.exec(txt.value);
 if (finds == null) {
 txt.value='{{template}}\n'+txt.value;
 }

I'll try to get back to you later on other points, if nobody else has helped out. Gimmetrow 15:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I got it working. Thank you very much for your help. I am now looking to solve the location and the quote protection issues. If you have the energy for more, I would be even more grateful. Lightmouse (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The toughest part of protecting quotes is that as it stands, anyone may add a quote at any time, whether the article has previously been visited and marked by Lightbot or not. The new quotation, which must be protected, may be indicated by a template, the <blockquote> tag, indentation, single quotes, double quotes, etc. Any mark that might have been added by Lightbot need not be removed or changed by the editor adding the new quote. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
There are complexities to protecting quotes, but I don't see why it's relevant whether a bot visited the page before. These scripts work on the live version of the page. Gimmetrow 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me put it another way. If no special markings are applied to dates within quotes, bot's can't recognize they should be left alone. But if we could get editors to specially mark dates within quotes, we could also get them to write the dates correctly to begin with. So what is the point of a "solution" that can't do as good a job as a human that a date is within a quote? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, a user will always be able to create a quote that a bot can't detect and/or a human might overlook. If I remember correctly, we even had a dramatic case where an entire page was a quote but there were no quotation marks and no quote templates. Statistically, quotes are rare, quotes without templates are a subset of those, quotes without templates and with dates are a subset again, quotes without templates and with dates that mismatch the article date format are a subset again. We are talking about decreasing the false positive rate substantially but it never gets to zero. If non-zero risk is unacceptable, then we can't reformat dates by bot but we should be able to do it by human supervised script. The risk of human error never gets to zero either but for some reason, people seem to think that an error in an article created by a human is better than the same error created by a bot.

But right now, I am only concerned about the nerdy technical issue of a potentially valuable code update. In principle, it doesn't matter if the code is human supervised or not, if a code update can eliminate an entire classs of text (text within a quote template), then there seems no reason not to update the code to use that protection. Lightmouse (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted Lightbot edit

I have reverted your bot's edit at Cistercians Abbey in Wąchock because the single link it undid serves to place the article within its proper historical context without adding unnecessary data to the article itself, and because the edit does not actually appear to be within the approved "date fragment delinking" purview of the bot. If you wish to discuss this, please contact me via my talk page of that of the article itself (which is on my watchlist). --Geoff Capp (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand your first point correctly it is: 'something that happened within a time period should link to other events in the same time period'. I think it has to be something a lot stronger than that. Your second point is that you couldn't see the relevant part of Lightbot approval for delinking dates. The relevant section is within Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3 "This includes but is not limited to seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, fortnights, months, years, decades, centuries, eras, and can be in any sequence or format." I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No, my first point is that, in this specific case, the structure referenced has historical relevance as being an exemplar of the culture and architecture of a specific place (linked) and period of time (unlinked by bot, relinked by me) with which the reader may not be familiar. Just as the article should be linked to the article regarding the specific place, rather than being filled with extraneous detail on said location, it should also be linked—once, unobtrusively—to the article that gives similar background on the relevant time period, rather than being filled with an otherwise unnecessary treatise on the architecture and history of 12 century Europe. My second point is that, while Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3 requested approval to "add, remove or modify links to dates", the approval section notes that this was approved "per previous approval requests" and the previous approvals at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_2 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot approved use of the bot for delinking only of fragmentary and damaged dates. This date was neither fragmentary nor damaged, and was completely appropriate in context. I delete most date links I find myself, so I understand the reason for the bot doing so during this era of date-link deprecation; but one of the reasons why such links are deprecated rather than forbidden is because sometimes they make sense. This is such a time. --Geoff Capp (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue with you on the first point. I would rather defer to third party opinion. The approval in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3 did indeed build on the two previous ones. Are you saying that the phrase: "This includes but is not limited to seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, fortnights, months, years, decades, centuries, eras, and can be in any sequence or format." is invalid because of what was said in the two earlier approvals? Lightmouse (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

a protocol question

Lightmouse, maybe you could weigh in on this question - i really would like to contribute something to the proceedings, but i'm not sure what's appropriate. thanks Sssoul (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

{{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} insertion

Lately, when I have used the script, it has been inserting a blank {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} at the top of the edits. Any idea why or how to make it stop?--2008Olympianchitchat 09:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You were using my test script (User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test script.js) and it isn't stable. I use it for tests before launching new code into the public script. The public script is more stable. I see that you have switched to the public script so you should be fine now.

A tip: If you put User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js on your watchlist, you will seen when I have updated it. Then just clear your cache and you will get the updates. Lightmouse (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Evidence" in ArbCom case

Hi Lightmouse, were you aware of this allegation? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did have the account named 'Bobblewik'. Almost 3 years ago, date delinking had a lot of support (70 to 80% of people that voted supported delinking of dates by bot). I stopped editing Wikipedia because I got tired of what I perceived as ad hominem attacks and stalking. Seven months later, I decided to come back. I created the account Editore99 partly because I wanted to avoid the ad hominem attacks/stalking and partly because of the rather mundane reason of a forgotten password (after 7 months, my computer no longer kept it for me). Subsequently my computer and/or I forgot the Editore99 password and I created the account called Lightmouse. The connection between the three accounts seems obvious to me but I was glad that the attacking/stalking didn't seem to carry accross. Somebody sympathetic did question me after one of the name changes and I told them why.

Ad hominem attacks seem to be on the rise again. Date delinking will not go away simply by banning one or two editors. If the search is for a date delinking Sparticus then I say "I am Sparticus and I delink dates".

I thought that the arbitration was a supreme court final appeal about whether/how dates can be linked or delinked. Even inside the arbitration, there is a huge proportion of irrelevant ad hominem attacks/defence and calls for punishments against individuals. I will not add to that proportion, even to defend myself. Lightmouse (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Lightmouse, this seems a very reasonable explanation that clears the air. I have never doubted your sincerity here, no matter what previous incarnation you had. It seems utterly irrelevant. However, I believe you should simply insert a link to this section at the ArbCom thing. No matter how dabsed and ill-designed that process is, it's necessary to provide a minimal amount of information so that the process at least has the choice of forming a balanced view. If you don't, I will link to the section above at some stage (unless you explicitly object). Tony (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I decline to become involved even just to add a link. Defence by a victim is sometimes just fuel for an attack. Somebody else will just add another counter-link and the cycle will continue. I have no objection to you adding links. I hope that all parties will return to discussion of the issue rather than discussion of people. Lightmouse (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I see the wisdom in that policy. The case is certainly turning into something very nasty, with one particular editor continuing to fan the flames on a daily basis with 'new evidence'. I am beginning to feel that yours may be the best way to de-escalate the whole war. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that contributions here are used as fuel. You and I can't force other people to stop ad hominem attacks but we can stop joining in. Eventually ad hominem talk will run out of steam. The only thing that will be left will be a discussion of whether/how dates should be linked/delinked. Lightmouse (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if and when that happens. I would be happy to join in a civilized discussion. Thanks for all your hard work. Plastikspork (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

date unlinking script question

I notice lately when I use the script, it leaves {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} at the top of the page. It's no big deal as I just have to remember to remove it. I am wondering why it started doing that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a link in my monobook.js to Lightmouse's script. So I am not sure what I should change. By coming to this page yesterday, I was startled to find the arbitration going on over the use of this script. I have never had trouble with other editors over the use of it. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to User:Mattisse/monobook.js and replace 

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

with 

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

Save the page. Clear your cache using the instructions on the page i.e. Ctrl-Shift-R if you have Firefox. That should do it. A tip is to put User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js onto your watchlist and clear your cache each time you see that I have edited it. That will give you the benefit of updates. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lightmouse. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
M, you may or may not be aware there is an ArbCom injunction out against "mass delinking" while the case is ongoing, so it's best to be cautious in its use for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I don't do it on a "mass" basis but only on articles I am working on currently. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Very cautious. Tony (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeno

I have provided a link and quoted the text. Lightmouse (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Vinayakparkhe

Hey Mouse,

Hope ur doing fine. I could not find any option to place my comments or open a new talk. Sorry, I had to barge in, into this article.

I have been editing & maintaining the article on Baburaoji Parkhe for a log time now. I have also entered a lot of notable and credible references. I will further add inputs from some national english as well as vernacular newspapers.

As for the grammatical errors I will get that straight. Do let me know as to how and from whom I can get the tags removed, once it is done. So unnecessary tagging can be avoided.

~~Vin~~

Hi, I can't help you but if you ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), you will probably get an answer. Lightmouse (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens and en dashes

Hyphen: -

En dash: –

If it's hard to see the difference, perhaps you should change browsers or settings.

Hyphens conjoin words; en dashes are for ranges and to separate.

WP:MOSDASH Tony (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Code updated for en dash. Clear your cache and test it now. More feedback welcome.
I can see the difference if I look closely. I suppose that I don't notice the difference and/or don't care about it. Lightmouse (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
They're very different on my display (not edit mode, though). They carry important meaning and are also an aesthetic matter when it comes to year and date ranges. They are an important aspect of writing stylishly in English. Thanks for your initiative on the script. Please give me 20 hours; got to sleep then see clients all day (and evening). <tries to smile>Tony (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you want a space after the bullet? As in:
* January 1
*January 1

Do you want it to work with day-month and month-day formats?
Lightmouse (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be good. It needs to be able to pick up both asterisk-space and asterisk; whether it should end up one or the other I don't know—possible non-spaced. Tony (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Units

Hi. I'm just letting you know that your edit here goes against the final guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conventions. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we had that particular guideline. I think the reason for such a guideline is that it clarifies the unit when it is ambiguous or when the units vary e.g. "the glass door was 8 mm x 2 m x 1 m". I fully support the idea of clarity. However in this case, the units are unambiguous. Paintings are not likely to have one dimension that is 100 times as big as the other. Repeating cm adds no value and wastes four characters in an application where compact presentation is valuable. I think the guideline is too onerous and should either be changed or ignored. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, perhaps we should debate it at wt:mosnum. Lightmouse (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: needless precision

Hi Lightmouse, Andy Dingley makes some good points here. Hope you are well.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That discussion would go down well at wt:mosnum. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2009/January&oldid=1142543909"