User talk:Bobblewik/Archive/2006Aug

Wood Preservation[edit]

Please review the changes that I have to the article Timber treatment. --Lumber Jack 17:40, 4. Jul 2006 (CEST)

Hi, Ingoolemo

Thanks for your comments. I can't reply on your talk page because I am blocked. I hope you see this.

You wrote: I thought about moving my scripts to the User:Userscripts namespace, but that seemed silly unless you did the same. Interested?

I don't know what the Userscript namespace does. I am generally pro anything that makes things easier for editors but can you please let me know before I agree to it. Thanks. bobblewik 09:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Williams peer review[edit]

Hello, I noticed you contributed to the Alison Krauss Featured Article nomination. If you have time we would appreciate your input on the Hank Williams Peer Review here. Thanks for your time.--WilliamThweatt 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking (again)[edit]

Hello Bobblewik, I see you have been repeatedly blocked for continual delinking of dates. Despite extensive past discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), you are well aware that there is no widespread consencus for these edits. From past discussion here and on WP:ANI, and your block history, you are well aware that these edits are extremely controversial and disruptive. It is disappointing that you returned to date delinking articles en-masse just 8 minutes after your last block expired. Please stop these edits until there is consensus for them. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 1 week as you have continued date delinking. I will raise this at WP:ANI for review and comment. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

On a related note...[edit]

Actually I also don't understand why your unregistered bot doesn't implement this recommendation from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement:

Preferably, use   for the space (25 kg) so that it does not break lines.

specifically in articles that already have several nbsp's separating the number from the unit, for example this edit: 12:57, 15 August 2006? --Francis Schonken 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of 'rapid en-masse'[edit]

'Rapid' was defined as more than 2 per minute. I complied with this. I did 33 edits in 65 minutes, the definition would have permitted up to 130 edits in that time.

'En-masse' is not defined. I would be astonished if 33 edits are 'en-masse'.

Another constraint was the date delinking should not occur in the absence of other edits. I complied with this.

I have acted within the constraints imposed. It is unreasonable to impose constraints on editing and then block people that work within those constraints. This block is unreasonable.

I would like an advocate but I can't request one formally because I am blocked. bobblewik 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll step up. I'll try and get the discussion shifted from ANI to here, so you can defend yourself. I'm inclined to agree with you. Megapixie 15:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on the date issue, but I would suggest that getting near limits that are set "for reference" is at least risky behaviour. 65 edits does represent a fairly serious effort to take a stance and get things moving on a contentious issue. If the "other edits" were done primarily to allow you to, within the rules, do the date delinking, that might be seen as problematic -- judgement on that is difficult though. It might be reasonable to impose constraints that are formal and expect them to act within the spirit of the constraints. Ordinarily, I'd be pretty neutral on the whole date thing -- someone who's fully on board with the idea of delinking dates might see you as a bit of a hero for doing the right thing despite public waffling, and on the other hand, someone on the other side might be greatly disturbed at your not waiting for the discussion to reach a more solid position. I feel that you're venturing into problematic areas when you start to go against the spirit of Arbcom rulings, even if you're careful with the letter. If you will hold off on touching dates until this matter is fully discussed, I believe it wouldn't be inappropriate to unblock you, and I'm going to trust you ahead of time to do so and unblock you now so you can discuss this in other areas. If you feel an urge to touch dates, please let me know on my talkpage -- I'm sticking my neck a bit out and don't want to stick it out too far on this issue. Thanks. --Improv 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblewik. please see my reply on WP:ANI where I've addressed the question of "en-masse" and other matters. I offered to unblock to allow you to discuss there, but I see Improv beat me to it. Please respect the date link edit moratorium while this is discussed again. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Saturn V infobox[edit]

Template:Saturn V infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Saturn V infobox[edit]

Template:Saturn V infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programming[edit]

Take care. We need your programming capabilities. Thanks Hmains 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your support. bobblewik 10:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commas, commas, commas[edit]

I do copyedits of WP articles. It seems over 90% of my work involves inserting commas into their proper location, as per English punctuation rules. This is a boring, time consuming task and seems to have no end; WP editors do not know comma punctuation very well. Please consider whether 'Dates' could at least insert proper commas surrounding date phrases (even better would be to add commas after all sentence-beginning phrases, but anything would help). Thanks Hmains 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can define the phrases, I will start a script for you. bobblewik 18:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

"Dates" and "Units" place words in the 'edit summary', even though no changes have been made by these products. This is misleading and must be manually deleted. It would be helpful if no changes are made to have no words placed in the edit summary. Thanks Hmains 17:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is a problem that I don't know how to solve. Somebody must know. bobblewik 18:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates failure[edit]

'List of Palestinian refugee camps': 'dates' worked only partially; I have seen this typel of failure elsewhere, but I thought to bring it to your attention this time. Thanks Hmains 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is a known bug. Look at the first failure: <nowki>1948, Jabalia</nowiki>. It does not know the difference between <nowki>Jabalia</nowiki> and <nowki>January 12</nowiki>. The code cannot check for words, only letters. You will see that all of the failures contain letters that are also in month names.

I did go to extensive effort to reduce the number of failures but I do not know how to eliminate it entirely. It is particularly noticeable when in lists, unfortunately. Sigh. bobblewik 05:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]