User talk:Bobblewik

Mistake

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_in_unremarkable_quotes

Date links

Fucking quit it. You've been told many times. You've been blocked for an extended period of time. If you keep this up, you're asking for a community ban, or at least another multi-month block. Rebecca 23:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rollbacked most of your edits from the last couple of days, and will proceed to rollback each and every single edit until you either cease and discuss the matter or are inevitably reblocked. Rebecca 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All reverted. Shall I rinse and repeat tomorrow morning or will you stop and move on to something useful? Rebecca 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the pertinent Wikipedia Manual of Style information at User talk:Rebecca that disallows wikidate overlinkage. Hopefully, this will clear things up. --Tenebrae 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope so. bobblewik 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect me to be fooled by posting a version of the MOS that was replaced several months ago, and appears to have been taken from the edit history? The (quite stable) current draft of the MOS says nothing of the sort. Rebecca 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Now that you're conflating your edit summaries, if you persist, I'll be forced to revert every single edit you make. I'll leave today's bunch, but I'll start rollbacking the lot on sight as of tomorrow morning if you keep it up. Rebecca 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now reverted all your edits since the above comment. I will proceed to do until you stop and discuss your edits. Rebecca 05:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time for you to set up a request for comment on the dates/units editing feature (not on anyone's coduct, as that will only add fuel) so that we can get a clear consensus on how the MoS is to be applied. When you're done, can you please post the link on my talk page. Thanks. Harr o5 20:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I am not sure what to ask for and I see the following requirement:

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.

bobblewik 20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae and Quaddle have wandered through the debate and tried to resolve it, but haven't stuck at it. However, I would say that this is a case which won't be settled simply between a handful of editors. The RfC should ask for views on when to use your script (you must clearly outline what it is and how it works) and whether there are cases when it should be left out (eg. not removing year links in infoboxes). If you write it up I'll come and comment on it quite early. Harr o5 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. A few other editors have spoken up about this. I am watching to see the response. bobblewik 18:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be sorted out once and for all. Please start the RFC. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am getting conflicting advice (all welcome though), some say it is about editor behaviour, some say it is about tools. I am worried that if an RFC is started by me, it will be seen as personal. What is your opinion? bobblewik 20:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI, an RFC is used to guage community opinion on an issue, and so there should be no opprobrium, whoever starts it. In a sense, it is personal, because it is your edits that are being rolled back willy-nilly, without any regard for whether they are improvements or not. To be honest, I am amazed how calm you are about all this - I would be absolutely livid if someone was tracking my moves and undoing everything I did. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All your date link removals since the last message have now been rollbacked. Using deceptive edit summaries will not allow you to get away with that which you have already been blocked for innumerable times. Rebecca 01:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peaceful suggestion

do not ever edit Australian-related articles. Thanks Hmains 02:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much

Hi there!

I want to thank you so much for your unit change on the Bongo (antelope) article I'm working on. Please help out as much as you can as I'm new to this!

Thanks again, Black Stripe 20:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I have just tidied up some more details and found some original data sources. It seems that the US units were conversions. The use of '891 pounds' seemed to me to be overly precise and sure enough, they are actually conversions of original metric data. bobblewik 06:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem child

Yes, well I think it's getting close to the point of doing something about this. As an admin. she is supposed to be setting an example, not showing WP at its worst; it disgusts me. I don't know how to take action, but will support it. Tony 07:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi,

Thanks for your intervention. It seems that Rebecca is carrying out her promise to use rollback on my edits. Does this constitute stalking? bobblewik 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me think about the best way to deal with this. --Guinnog 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Atlantis

Not wanting to get involved in a revert war, I hope that the logic of having a consistent linking style throughout the article will appeal to all editors, regardless of their belief in linking or not linking dates.

However, I do agree with your and others' opinions on this matter. I have also read the correspondence between various users and Rebecca, initially to satisfy the curiosity of who was changing a page I watch, and then because it offered a strange entertainment value. That said, good luck with whatever actions are being taken. Regardless or your opinion on this issue, there is no excuse for someone to treat others as she has. Cjosefy 19:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. That is very well put. Regards bobblewik 19:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents

Hi Bobblewik,

I suggested to you that you stay away from date de-linking, and you seemed to agree with my comment. When you've been blocked several times for a certain behaviour, you shouldn't try seeing what you can get away with the next time. That makes people very grumpy.

Massive revertions of your edits is not wikistalking. She genuinely believes your behaviour to be incorrect.

That being said, Rebecca can be incivil to people - not just you, to a wide variety of people. I'll be talking to her after you. Andjam 11:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you perform so many edits?

Bobblewik,
You may have been asked this before, but how do you perform so many edits so quickly? Are you using WP:AWB? Just wondering. —MJCdetroit 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use AWB. I use a monobook tool and tabs in Firefox. If you want to use the tool:

copy User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to the bottom of User:MJCdetroit/monobook.js
clear your cache (Firefox: press Ctrl-Shift-R. IE: press Ctrl-F5)

Then when you are editing an article, you will see tabs for 'units' and 'dates'. If you press one of these tabs, it will offer you the edits in 'Show changes' mode. You can then accept or reject the changes. Let me know if you need more help. Regards bobblewik 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried your script out, very handy. Would it be possible to extend the space inserting function to include Newton metres (Nm), Pferdestärke (PS), and litres (L/l), or does this break other stuff? Cheers! RB30DE 09:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you have a tool to do the actual unit conversions? or is that done the old fashion way? —MJCdetroit 02:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'general' tab tool has code to convert common units in ship articles. I often think of extending it but false positives and excess precision make the work non-trivial. Feel free to make suggestions or to create your own code. Other than that, I use the excellent Google converter. Just see what happens when you try a search for '11 uk gallons'. Regards bobblewik 08:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

units &/or links

I've noticed you changing a lot of units in automobile articles from "XXXhp" to "XXX hp". If you're going to do this, could you follow the WP:Autos conventions and use the non-breaking space ( ) to prevent automatic line wrapping? This would also apply to non-autombile articles where you're inserting a space between the value and the unit. Thanks. --DeLarge 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like to ensure that the reader sees a space. In the past, I tried to go a step further and add nbsp but I ended up making too many mistakes and it is much more complicated and slow. So now I just concentrate on the main task of correcting the absence of a visible space. If you would like to convert the visible space from one type to another, I would be happy to assist you. I have helped other editors in that. I would also be happy to discuss formats in general in your project page if you want to copy this discussion there. Regards bobblewik 10:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball

Thanks for your changes to the Basketball article recently. Neonumbers 11:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. One piece of praise like that is worth a thousand rollbacks. bobblewik 18:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

"Fucking" is by definition profanity, which is included in the policy Wikipedia:Civility as a serious example of breaking that policy. According to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "Obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors may be blocked or banned after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that their edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies" so persistent use of such profanity that causes other editors to be distressed can result in being banned without the use of the formalism of arbcom. The point of the Wikipedia:Civility policy is because uncivil behavior is bad for wikipedia. Disrupting wikipedia by persistent profanity even after being warned can be expected to result in being blocked and eventually banned if the conduct does not improve. This message is going to Bobblewik and Rebecca. WAS 4.250 00:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really you?

You seem to be slipping up on your edits. I thought you used to fix commas used as decimal points and dots used as thousands separators, but recently I've noticed you haven't been changing them. Gene Nygaard 03:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have made a few such edits in the past but I do not seek out such things. My current thinking is to tolerate the comma as a decimal but it is not something I think much about. Are you perhaps thinking of User talk:BlaiseFEgan?

bobblewik 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Bobblewik, can I ask you please to stop delinking dates en masse, or at the very least to use clear edit summaries so that editors wanting to revert know which edits to target? As you may recall, I support not linking stand-alone years, but in the face of objections, it's not appropriate or fair to go through the encyclopedia at great speed to delink where no other edits are being made to articles. There have been similar situations in the past with American/British spellings, and with BCE/BC, and the ArbCom upheld the principle that editors shouldn't go out of their way, without good reason, to change from one style to another where there's no consensus for the changes. The MoS is just a guideline, so even if it clearly specified one style, which it doesn't, it still wouldn't be appropriate to rely on it in the face of strong objections. Your cooperation would be very much appreciated, because the issue is causing bad feeling between good editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request by SlimVirgin, I could not have put it better. Again too many Wikipedians are putting time in something that after long discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (...and many other places) had been settled as a "don't do": that is: "don't go around in Wikipedia de-linking solitary years". So, please, whatever your actions in Wikipedia, please consider that it should not create unneeded tension, absorbing disproportionate amounts of energy of quite a few wikipedians. Like myself, now. --Francis Schonken 09:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]