User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2009/Apr

Blocked

Per a temporary injunction issued on January 13, visible and noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#Temporary injunction against automated date linking or delinking, in which it explicitly states:

“ 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. ”

I have blocked this account for 24 hours due to edits such as these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

Tiptoety ^talk 21:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have been blocked with no warning and no opportunity to respond to this accusation. This block is not warranted by the terms of the injunction. The injunction prohibits a "program of mass delinking”. It does not prohibit all unlinking, and earlier decisions have established that unlinking in the course of other improvements is acceptable.

Here is a detailed analysis of the list of my alleged crimes:

• No.11: I made around 10 changes to that article, of which one was a delinking of a bare year
• No. 10: I made around 20 changes to that article, of which two were unlinking of decades (the second of which was a duplicate link)
• No. 9: I made over 30 changes to that article, of which 1 was a delinking of an autoformatted date
• No. 8: I made 7 changes to that article, of which 3 were delinking autoformatted dates
• No. 7: I made a large number of changes to that article, including quite a few date fragment unlinkings, almost all of which were bare day-month links
• No. 6: I made around 15 changes to that article, of which 3 were delinking bare years
• No. 5: I made 6 changes to that article, of which 1 was delinking an autoformatted date
• No. 4: I made 7 changes to that article, of which 1 was delinking an autoformatted date
• No. 3: I made 9 changes to that article, of which 2 were delinking autoformatted dates
• No. 2: I made 13 changes to that article, of which one was delinking a bare year, 2 were delinking autoformatted dates, and one was delinking a date incorrectly autoformatted inside an {{as of}} template
• No. 1: I made 4 changes to that article, of which 3 were delinking autoformatted dates (the other was a spelling correction).

This is a total of about 140 changes, of which less than 30 involved delinking, and several of those were either unlinking duplicates or removing incorrect formatting. Colonies Chris (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Please see this. Tony (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Colonies Chris, I'm a fan of date autoformatting/autolinking too, but please refrain from making any edits to dates, while the ArbCom case is ongoing (or more properly, while the associated injunction is in place.) It's only fair, if we expect other people to abide by the injunction as well. Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sapphic, I think you'd be best to keep your bib out of this. Your comment could be construed as inflammatory. Tony (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way Chris. Some Arbitrators are aware of your comments here, just so you know. Tiptoety ^talk 23:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what does that mean? Is it a threat? A comfort? Tony (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, he sent me a email asking how he could bring his concerns to the attention of some Arb's and I told him to post here. I was just letting him know that I made some Arbitrators aware of his comments here. Please assume good faith. Yeesh. Tiptoety ^talk 03:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I'm very upset about the apparent one-sidedness of your actions, but am open to reconsidering—maybe I'm wrong. Now I see the context here, that is fine. I'm just making things worse, it seems. Tony (talk)

Notice

Your continuing date delinking activities in apparent violation of the injuction have been noted here. Tennis expert (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The admin's response has made very clear that I was not acting in violation of the injunction. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It may be more a matter of asking for a Checkuser on the apparent sock who has been violating the injunction, Tennis E. Tony (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Tennis expert (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting

The code saving I was referring to is primarily in the citation templates (though I'm not sure if the autoformatting laws were governing them....I've followed the rule that if it wasn't in the regular text then you can still autoformat for the citation itself). What I mean specifically is that "January 31, 2009" takes up more code than "[[2009-01-31]]". Now, granted that's only 2 or 3 extra characters, but when you have an article with 100+ sources (some of which with both "date" and "accessdate" filled in), it can add up. Now, this can work aversly if you're dealing with smaller lettered months (e.g., May), but that really depends on the article (e.g., a lot of the film articles I work on tend to post production info from some of the later months in the year, which have longer names). As for the "readers", my opinion is that if you institute autoformatting for IP users then there won't be an issue of what they see. If the community of editors decide to use [[2009-01-30]] then let the IP see "January 30, 2009". If the community of editors decide to use [[30-01-2009]] then let the IP see "30 January 2009" (in order to allow for the article's country of origin to dictate the visual style the IP users see. That's just a thought. My primary issue is with the citation templates, because it is much easier to use the numerical dates over the spelled out dates when you're filling out the form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)