User talk:Bobblewik

Units in image names

Hello again. Looks like a units update tripped over a mm in an image name. You might want to update the script to ignore units in image names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ADEN_cannon&diff=51713155&oldid=38794180

Keep up the good work Megapixie 01:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thank you for catching that. I am aware of the problem and do always visual check. I usually catch them but that one slipped through. It had not occured to me that I might update the script (User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js). Now that I think about it, I have an idea of how the function might work, but it is at the limits of my ability. If I can get hold of a script expert, I will discuss the problem. Thanks. bobblewik 16:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dates tab is great!

Hi,

thank you very much for the date tool! I've tried it on a couple of articles and I'm enthusiastic. A real time saver. Incidentally, I'm wondering what does "dontcountme=s" do :-). May I also use your unitformatter? --Gennaro Prota ^(talk) 18:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied on my talk page (thought to leave you a notice, just in case you didn't see the disclaimer at the top) --Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware of those 'disclaimer' guidelines and usually follow them myself. But on this occasion I didn't. Thanks. I will watch your talk page for a while. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the date tool working. When I created the dates.js and unitformatter.js subpages the tabs appeared. Thanks! --Atrian 14:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I should perhaps have warned you that each time you edit your monobook, you need to clear the cache. That may have contributed to your difficulties. Just follow the instructions at the top of your monobook. Try running the tool on the pages in your watchlist or in 'What links here' for solitary months like December. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 15:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Agricultural Land Reserve

Hi - I note that you have (correctly) converted the reference in this article from "4.7 million hectares" to "47,000 square kilometres". It may be advisable to retain the "4.7 million hectares", at least in paranthesis following the 47,000 sq.km. The reasons for this are that (a) official statistics on the ALR are reported in hectares; and (b) those of us involved in agriculture and agricultural land preservation normally converse in hectares or acres.

Thanks for your work! GazzBC 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)GazzBC[reply]

It's on again

Bobblewick—Are you aware that Ambi (now renamed Rebecca) has removed the guidlines in the MoS about not linking trivial chronological items? Tony 03:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will keep my eye on the MoS. bobblewik 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzle velocities & broken links

Hello, Bobblewick!

I am puzzled by your recent edit to HMS Hood (51). Why is sond better than second?

I have added this page to my watchlist, in case you prefer to reply here.

Sincere regards, John Moore 309 23:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo. I know what went wrong. I was fixing a lot of incorrect unit formats. I was replacing many instances in articles of 'ft/sec' with 'ft/s'. I overlooked the 'ond' bit. I have corrected it now. Thank you for telling me. bobblewik 07:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting this. I don't know if you are aware that you also broke a link to 15 inch /42 (38.1 cm) Mark I naval gun by changing 38.1 cm to 381 mm. (I've repaired it).

Sincere regards, John Moore 309 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for sorting the 5.5 inch conversion too. I wonder about 15 inch /42 (38.1 cm) Mark I naval gun, should it really be 15 inch /42 (381 mm)? bobblewik 12:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article move with Trinidad and Tobago Olympic history

Hi, in this edit, you moved Trinidad & Tobago Olympiad History to Trinidad & Tobago Olympic history. I've renamed it again, but for future reference, such history articles usually have the name X at the Summer/Winter Olympics , eg Australia at the Winter Olympics. Thanks, Andjam 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is a much better name. I am glad that there is a convention. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 09:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gramophone record

Hi there. I know you're only trying to help, but if you insist on helping in the fashion you've developed here you're going to have to take a lot more care. Edits like this one actually break things, and that's Not Good. Please be more careful. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for picking up the incorrect editing of an image name. I have now edited it again without that error. I actually spotted the image name amendment and thought I had corrected it. Something weird must have happened. You are right it was not a Good thing and I will be more careful. Good job this is a wiki. Regards. bobblewik 10:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking

Hi Bobblewik, could you please indicate why you delinked 1920 one time in the Igor Stravinsky article? ([1]) - your edit summary ("Dates") is not clarifying in that sense. --Francis Schonken 11:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1920 is not remarkable to Pulcinella. See the dates associated with his other works. Regards. bobblewik 11:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it had to be remarkable to Pulcinella? Did you even have a clue why it was linked in the first place?

And how would you qualify this edit: [2] - didn't even know you were interested in 19th century ballets. There's always the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance, participants of that project would welcome you!

Or are you just taking up your old antics again, as can easily be deduced from your 80-odd contributions in less than half an hour, starting 21 May 2006, 10:10 (this is bot speed, if I need to remember you of that)? contribs

I just think think this is stronger than yourself. Sorry, no offense intended, but you can't control yourself notwithstanding prior promises and probations. What suggestion would you make yourself for what the wikipedia community should do to protect wikipedia from this behaviour? --Francis Schonken 11:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Pulcinella (1920) should be linked, why was there no link in Octet (1923) which was just two words later. Nor in Oedipus Rex (1927) later in the article. Are you saying that there is something special about 1920? bobblewik 11:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, shows you're completely clueless w.r.t. the Stravinsky article. The question was whether you had any clue why this link would or would not be relevant in the context of the Stravinsky article?

Returning to the Sylvia ballet article the edit I posted above ([3]) is plainly (that is: without needing interpretation) disruptive, and it was just the first I picked randomly from your user contributions. If you have no clue why it was "plainly disruptive", that only shows you didn't look at the article, and what exactly your edit changed.

So, I formally request you revert all your edits involving "dates" from 10:10 to 10:40 today (including respect for possible intermediate edits).

I leave you the choice where I report this incident, which could be,

...or any other reasonable proposition you'd care to make. --Francis Schonken 11:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is so special about the 1920 article for Pulcinella that is not special about the 1923 article for Octet? If you want me to know, then please tell me. bobblewik 11:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm? Did you read the article?

And why do you avoid to reply regarding the other disruption I mentioned? --Francis Schonken 11:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read it but I am still ignorant. Instead of asking me to guess, just tell me please. We can then debate the point. What is so special about the 1920 article for Pulcinella that is not special about the 1923 article for Octet? bobblewik 11:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be clear, shouldn't it?:

===The Neo-Classical Period===

The next phase of Stravinsky's compositional style, slightly overlapping the first, is marked by two works: Pulcinella 1920 and the Octet (1923) for wind instruments. [...]

If it isn't clear, you're simply clueless. Then, stay out of such articles, and revert the date changes as requested above.

Since you don't seem to have alternate suggestions, I'm by now reporting on the three pages I suggested above. --Francis Schonken 12:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read that quote before but I remain clueless (as you put it). What is so special about the 1920 article for Pulcinella that is not special about the 1923 article for Octet? bobblewik 12:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking should not be done by the clueless — QED

I'd have gladly explained (but really, you can read that in the Stravinsky article) that that date marks a change in Stravinsky's output, i.e. starting to compose in the neo-classical style. But, really, your interest in Stravinsky seems to be rather shallow to me, only for the sake of argument in this delinking of dates dispute. What you might not know, and that is why date delinking is even more something not to be performed by clueless ~~hillbillies~~ contributors, is that that date (Stravinsky publishing Pulcinella) marks one of the most commented upon career moves in music history. If the Sacre (his last major ballet before Pulcinella) and the neo-classical style of Pulcinella ring no bells for you, then what "point" were you exactly trying to make? --Francis Schonken 12:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling me a hillbilly now. Is that meant as an insult? bobblewik 13:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the important point was that you were clueless, as you admitted yourself, so were inable to make an assessment of context. So, please revert all your edits involving "dates" from 10:10 to 10:40 today (including respect for possible intermediate edits) --Francis Schonken 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that calling me a hillbilly is not insulting? bobblewik 13:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the word, with a formal excuse to you, if you might have perceived that I intended that word to apply to you, which was not my intention. Sorry. Should've known better. --Francis Schonken 13:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. Thank you. So now we can continue.

The paragraph about 1920 being a change in Stravinsky's output is interesting and probably belongs in the article. It is certainly not in the 1920 article. None of the other instances of 1920 are linked and nor is 1923. So I still do not see what added value the reader gets from the link. bobblewik 13:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pending more details about the career move being included in the Stravinsky and/or 1920 article (but possible deficiencies of the 1920 article is not the *context* of the Stravinsky article), the fact that this date is linked is an indication given to the reader that this date *is* important in the context. That's where it should have stopped you being clueless. But it didn't.

So, we have two persons here:

a person admitting he's clueless on the issue, insisting the date is not relevant in the context.
a person maybe not the ultimate authority on Stravinsky, but knowing enough about that composer to know the significance of the date in the context, and insisting the date *is* relevant in the context.

Well, who should accept whose words, given this context?

So, if you can't revert your changes, you should at least admit you should have done, before getting blocked.

Anyway, again, you keep silent about the Sylvia article. If you'd have reverted there, and admitted it was an undisputed disruptive edit, irrespective of the context issue, I wouldn't have pushed the issue. --Francis Schonken 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your reasoning. You say the fact that this date is linked is an indication given to the reader that this date *is* important in the context. Links are not highlights to indicate value, links are intended to provide access to articles that add value. If the 1920 article does not add value, it is not relevant. bobblewik 14:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just taken a look at the Sylvia article. I see now what happened. The dates were linked incorrectly and did not work with date preferences. That is the answer to your question. If you want to discuss how faulty date links can and should be corrected, that is something we can discuss. bobblewik 14:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, what I'm looking for is a commitment to undo the contentious edits as described above. I don't see that commitment. Sorry, I can't help you with your block under these circumstances (if that is what you'd like – I'm not even certain about that). On the contrary, I'd recommend to extend the block to indefinite, there is even no commitment to refrain from such contentious edits in the future, although you've got plenty of people that have explained to you exactly what is so contentious about them. --Francis Schonken 15:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance, Bobblewik. I'm fed up with your restarting of the same edits every few weeks in the hope that people might have forgotten, even though it has now been quite clearly established that there is no consensus to make them. One more edit along these lines (at least without some new development on the consensus front, or even some participation from you) and I will begin drafting an arbitration request, and asking for an injunction that prohibits you from making any date-related edits. Rebecca 04:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wikilink standalone years

Somebody just undid all the wikilinks of standalone years (like 1975) that you put in gramophone record - and rightly so, I think. Turning a year into a link rarely accomplishes anything, because the "year" articles are so incredibly broad that they usually have no connection to the article you're reading; following them teaches you nothing. Links to year topics (like 1975 in music or 1975 in literature) are useful, and of course links to full date (August 15, 1975) are OK because they allow people's date-setting preferences to kick in. But otherwise, I'd save yourself the effort and not put any wikilinks on standalone years. See WP:DATES for more discussion. - DavidWBrooks 12:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Please check the edits again and you will see that we agree. bobblewik 12:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70 mm

Please be more careful next time when applying units edits. Your changes broke two interwiki links as well as an external web address. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Thank you for catching that. bobblewik 16:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Hi Bobblewik, right or wrong, isn't there more to wikipedia than unlinking dates (and please don't answer "converting units"!)? Thanks, Andjam 12:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi need help regarding Tintin pages

I want to start off a collaborative effort to start of Article Improvement for the Tintin pages and related stuff. I am new to here and I need guidelines and people to help me out. Also mention if you'd help me out with this. Thanks, Regards -54UV1K 08:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit error

Your edit here to correct units broke the link to an image, FYI. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I watch out for those but missed that one. Thank you for picking that up and correcting it. bobblewik 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review -- Cape Town

Thanks. Your response is appreciated. -- Chris Lester ^talk 19:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

Hi, I'm brazilian, (sorry with my english), I want to know if is permited in wp:en lyrics of songs. I wait you answer. --Thiago90ap 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I found lyrics at I Get a Kick Out of You. Why not ask at the village pump. bobblewik 23:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.js

Hi Bobblewik—Thanks for that; I'll work out later how to bypass the cache on Safari. Cheers Tony 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get a message that says: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: press Ctrl-Shift-R. bobblewik 00:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Bobblewik (for some reason, when I tried to bypass the cache for the first time, it didn't work) for helping me with the monobook.js thing. I used to do similar edits by javascript, and I'm sure this will be very helpful. Thanks again, AndyZ _t 13:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this work in Safari? What exactly should I see after I've added your script to my monobook and cleared my cache? Regards, TimL 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about Safari but I think it should work. When you click on 'Edit' and have the page in edit mode, you will have a tab marked 'dates'. Click on that and see what happens. bobblewik 16:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got it to work. My .js had bad formatting I guess. Thanks. TimL 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing at bot speed again?

Hi Bobblewik,

Looking at your first 48 hours of editing since your last block expired (from this edit to this edit), I don't know if you were aware, but most of these near to 900 edits were at bot speed, just picking some examples:

This edit to this edit, 15:44, 29 May 2006: 17 edits in one minute;
This edit to this edit, 14:20, 29 May 2006 to 14:23, 29 May 2006: 28 edits in 4 minutes (that is, on average, waiting 8 and a half seconds between two edits)

Did you have any comments regarding this behaviour, or are you just trying out how far you can go this time? --Francis Schonken 21:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives