User talk:Bobblewik: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:06, 11 March 2006

Archives

length, area, volume, power, mass, energy, speed, force, pressure, percent, electromagnetic radiation, limiting the use of metric units, love, request for Bobblewik input, style, United Kingdom, Wikipedia administration, dates, miscellany, unsorted archive

I am currently subject to an indefinite block by User:Talrias.

Quote: Blocked until satisfactory reasoning given.

As I understand it, the indefinite block is because he does not like the what and how of my edits that delink some date elements.

No, I blocked you because you continued your edits despite saying you were not going to continue them, and have failed to provide adequate reasoning for these mass changes despite having two failed bot requests, and a clear lack of consensus for the changes you wish to be made in both of them. Because you have shown no regard for requests, pleas and warnings to stop and discuss, you are leaving me with no choice but to block you so you may discuss it. Your insistence on continuing to make the edits when you are fully aware there is significant disagreement with implementing these changes is entirely unhelpful. You've promised in the past to stop and discuss. Admins, myself included, have taken you at your word. You've abused mine, and others' faith. How can we trust you if you promise to not continue these edits and discuss, when you've broken your word so often in the past? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance on the what of date link edits

Role in conflict reduction

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

Guidance on the how of editing

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

The role of constraints in conflict reduction

Some editors think that editing without a bot flag should be subject to a speed limit. A self-imposed limit of 120 edits per hour has been stated as acceptable for moving towards the Manual of style. This applies to edits and to reverts.

Want to reduce overlinking of date elements but can't get my monobook working?

I don't fully understand how it all works. However, if all else fails try:

1. Replace your entire monobook with mine.
2. Make sure you clear the cache as recommended: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5.
3. Go to an article. Press the edit tab.
4. When it opens in edit mode, you should see a tab labelled '1Jan2001' and one labelled 'µ'. Press the first one if you want it to delink dates and the second if you want it to deal with units. You can try both. You have to check the edits before pressing the usual save button.
5. After you get it working, put your old stuff back in.

Working for the good of Wikipedia

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

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

My record of supporting editors

This is not a poll. It is my own personal record of editors that support reducing excessive date links to meet MoS guidance.

Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
David D. (Talk) 23:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
A Y Arktos 19:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Ali@gwc.org.uk 12:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
ALoan (Talk) 09:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Antonio Perrito Martin 09:34, 26 February 206 (UTC)
Armindo 11:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Cyde Weys 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
dave souza, talk 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
David D. (Talk) 17:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 21:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Duk 23:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Gflores Talk 14:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Gheorghe Zamfir 10:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
gracefool |☺ 00:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
GraemeMcRaetalk 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
HappyDog 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Haukur 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmains 06:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Jclerman 13:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Joke 00:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
JWSchmidt 17:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Kafziel 12:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Kaldari 21:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua?!? 10:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Matt Crypto 13:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Michael David 00:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Neonumbers 09:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
older ≠ wiser 13:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Quiddity 22:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
R. S. Shaw 04:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Randwicked 12:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough 21:17 25 February 2006 (UTC).
Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Scottkeir 12:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Smyth\talk 12:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Srleffler 13:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Stroika 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Susvolans ⇔ 17:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Tempshill 06:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thincat 14:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Tony 23:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
VirtualSteve 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Vsmith 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Wackymacs 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Wetman 10:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

New comments below here please.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 | As I understand it, the indefinite block is because he does not like the '''what''' and '''how''' of my edits that delink some date elements.
 |}
+: No, I blocked you because you continued your edits despite saying you were not going to continue them, and have failed to provide adequate reasoning for these mass changes despite having two failed bot requests, and a clear lack of consensus for the changes you wish to be made in both of them. Because you have shown no regard for requests, pleas and warnings to stop and discuss, you are leaving me with no choice but to block you so you may discuss it. Your insistence on continuing to make the edits when you are fully aware there is significant disagreement with implementing these changes is entirely unhelpful. You've promised in the past to stop and discuss. Admins, myself included, have taken you at your word. You've abused mine, and others' faith. How can we trust you if you promise to not continue these edits and discuss, when you've broken your word so often in the past? [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 ==Guidance on the '''what''' of date link edits'''==