Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:06, 17 November 2008

Script bug

Hey Lightmouse, don't know if you've fixed it already but your script buggered up a bit in this edit. - kollision (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Second regex after //month+day piped to number in fix_common_errors - includes a $2 in the replace text. By the way, should it match Jun and Jul just in case? Gimmetrow 23:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks guys. Lightmouse (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse and Gimmetrow: is this the same issue? Dollar signs still there. I wouldn't have expected the script to correct the screwed-up formatting. Perhaps it can be made to do so easily? The issue remains as to how best to deal with the large number of script edits I did yesterda in the "music/literature/poetry in year" articles. Tony (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My script does not produce the dollar sign. If yours does, then your script is out of date. Try clearing your cache.

If you have a friendly admin, they can do a mass rollback. Otherwise, you and I can do it by hand. Lightmouse (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can use AWB go through your contributions and fix these errors. Leave it to me. Lightmouse (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be good. Yes, you're perfectly right—my intransigence in not updating my version of the script is to blame. It works beautifully now. Tony (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lightmouse (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In Tony's diff above, ] ] becomes September 29 2007 (no comma). Is that fixed? Gimmetrow 17:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see an instance in Tony's diff where |last=NZPA|date=] ] becomes |last=NZPA|date=September 29, 2007 (with comma). Where is the instance that you are talking about? Lightmouse (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the same case. I don't see a comma. A few paragraphs down there is one with last=Djamoos|first=Anton|date=] ]|publisher=Absolute Punk to last=Djamoos|first=Anton|date=October 18 2007|publisher=Absolute Punk, also no comma. Gimmetrow 21:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your code still has this bug; all_dates_to_dmy_or_mdy works does this right and delink_dates_to_dmy_or_mdy does this wrong.

Starting with 29 September 2007

function part_dates: 29 September 2007

function LMdayMonth(2): September 29 2007

function all_dates: September 29 2007

In the all_dates_to_dmy_or_mdy script, the function LMaddDLinks() restores the link around 2007. LMdayMonth was designed to make the date format consistent back when linked dates were the norm - it only works on linked dates or the linked parts of dates. Gimmetrow 02:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 txt.value = txt.value.replace(/(] | ])\)\]\]/g, "$1$2");

The added comma in #Glitch below comes from the same issue. My regex to delink isolated years only delinks 4 digit years with a non-space, non-comma or non-bracket character before, or with a space before and a non-comma, non-bracket before that. (That will falsely delink the relatively rare case of a year with two+ spaces between month/day and year; if it came up much I would fix it.) Gimmetrow 03:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Gimmetrow, you provided a line of regex. Are you suggesting that will solve it, if so where would it go? Lightmouse (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that more restrictive handling of linked years in part_dates() might handle this problem. Gimmetrow 12:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on this. Lightmouse (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this but I need feedback from beta testers. All you have to do is go to your monobook replace the current script with:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test_script.js');

The two scripts won't work together. Lightmouse (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatting Dates

I've seen some references to autoformatting in relation to complaints about your bot, but I can't seem to find any current information about wikipedia formatting dates based on user preferences when they aren't linked. I know I worked on a solution for the pages I am most concerned about to switch them from ISO YYYY-MM-DD to DD MMMM YYYY (since we - or at least I - didn't realize that those dates were displayed as YYYY-MM-DD to anonymous users even when linked. Now we don't have linked dates (good) and they are readable (good) but they don't format according to user preferences (bad - though they do format to my personal preference ;).

Can you point me in the right direction for programming/style changes that will allow dates that are not wikilinked to be autoformatted? TIA

BTW - I created a template today that converts dates formatted as DD MMMM YYYY to ISO format for use in tables with class sorting {{ISO date}} ----Trödel 18:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know. You could try asking the same question at wp:mosnum. The people that like to modify dates are probably all there. I did see something about autoformatting at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I now realize that hidden links can negatively affect date autoformatting but I thought since such autoformatting was deprecated anyway that the bot would be stripping the links off of the month-day portion. Instead, it's now taking links like ] and stripping them to much less useful or informative links to 1976--and leaving the rest of the date link intact so it's now a simple deprecated autoformatted date. This is not acceptable behavior from the bot. Strip the bare date links, that's apparently consensus, but leave the useful "year in radio" links intact, please. There's been no such consensus to strip those of their meaning. - Dravecky (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot can't do that. As you now know, the error was caused by the addition of a concealed link. All the bot can do is detect and undo the error. You are welcome to help improve Misplaced Pages by finding and fixing these common errors now that the bot has resulted in you being better informed. If you want to work together on this, we can but I am disappointed that you are suggesting the bot is wrong for correcting an error caused by somebody else. Lightmouse (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot is wrong for deliberately converting a useful link into a known deprecated link. If the bot can't handle it, the bot should just leave it alone. As it is, I'll be spending all morning undoing the wreckage caused by the bot...and that's only if the bot stays shut down or stops stripping "year in radio" links down to bare "year" links. - Dravecky (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Try not to be so aggressive. You would not have known about the hidden error if Lightbot had not fixed it. If you want to put the blame for the error on somebody and use the word 'wreckage', blame the person that caused the error, not the person that fixed it. I don't seek your gratitude for fixing errors caused by others and/or allowing you to become better informed but I do expect you to avoid attacking me. If you disagree with the activities of the bot, there are plenty of places you can go to complain or to lobby for an increase in its scope. Lightmouse (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking very politely that the bot stop acting outside whatever mandate you believe it has and stop unlinking "date in radio" links, especially as it's converting them to specifically deprecated autoformatted dates. The bot itself it creating hundreds of shiny new deprecated autoformatted dates by breaking existing links to a more useful article, one that is relevant to the radio station article from which it is linked. I don't seek your gratitude for alerting you to the errors caused by your bot but I do expect you to avoid creating new problems or to fix the bot before reactivating it. - Dravecky (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Consensus had previously been reached that 1) "year in radio" links were not to be unlinked by this bot and 2) that the sort of autoformatted dates the bot is currently creating are deprecated. Given these two facts, the behavior of the bot is against consensus and thus the bot should either be fixed (to strip the links from the month-day set instead) or to simply leave the "year in radio" links for manual correction. - Dravecky (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that autoformatting is not good. Lets be clear, somebody else created the autoformatted links and somebody else broke the links. You clearly do not believe me so please ask for a third party opinion at Wikipedia_talk:CONTEXT#suggestion_re_year-in-X_links. Lightmouse (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in many cases I personally added a link pair like "], ]" to an article so 1) I created that link pair, 2) I did not realize that it broke autoformatting, and 3) I acknowledge that date autoformatting is now deprecated and is being removed by the bot. Also to be clear, Lightbot is converting my example above to "], ]" which 1) created a new yet deprecated autoformatted date link pair and 2) removes the useful, on topic link to 1976 in radio. Given that there is no consensus for an urgent removal of date autoformatting, I'm simply asking that the bot not undo "date in radio" links if it can't, as you note, handle them properly. - Dravecky (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: A conversion to "July 4, ]" would be completely acceptable and meet both of our goals. - Dravecky (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now we are getting somewhere and we can talk a bit more calmly. This issue doesn't just apply to radio articles, you will find the same error with all 'year in blah' concealed links. There are many editors that acted as you did and there are also many editors that take a bit of convincing that there is an error that needs addressing. If you remove the day+month, the bot won't touch the radio link. I am not sure if it is possible for the bot to do it but you could easily do it with a script. If you don't have a script, I can help you set one up that will do exactly as you suggest i.e. convert to July 4, ]. Lightmouse (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would, perhaps, be calmer if I hadn't just discovered that you've reactivated the bot and concealed the stopping mechanism while this discussion is taking place. I've been working hard to assume good faith up to this point but your behavior in this matter is testing that resolve. Please have your bot cease this improper unlinking of "year in date" links immediately. - Dravecky (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not concealing the stopping mechanism. I was struggling to get you to understand that placing concealed dates in full dates is an error. You were sounding more aggressive. The only way that I could see of getting you to investigate was to direct you to a page that gives you a third party opinion. I have been complaining about this error for months, if not years but the error never got fixed. Well, it looks like now we might finally get some action. I have made a small change to the bot so that it is much less likely to encounter the error in radio articles. I will make a bigger change if we get some progress on fixing radio articles. I hope that helps.

I see that you have started making some changes to radio articles along the lines you have suggested. If you would like, you can use my monobook script that will remove autoformatting. Just let me know. Lightmouse (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only aggressive component to this conversation has been the behavior of your bot towards valid links in violation of consensus. I've been making fixes as I edit, as would any good editor, but I am not comforted by the tone of your 'offer' to fix your own bot to stop breaking proper links only if you feel that others are moving at a pace of which you approve. - Dravecky (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Glitch

Is it possible to exclude image links from the very useful ISO delinking function? See here for an example of what I mean. Thanks for all your good work on this. --John (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There has always been a problem with:

• image links
• quotes
• references

Examples are always useful to see if a class of false positives can be eliminated. In that example, there is a period followed by a letter ('2005-06-10.j'). I had been permitting period characters because it might be the end of a sentence but I can make it check the next character to see it if is a space character. I don't think I will ever eliminate the possibility of false positives entirely. Thanks for the feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm using an older version of the script so it will do the cites as well. However, I'm not sure how to tell it to ignore the URL fields, so its breaking links to ANN news articles, which we heavily use in anime/manga articles. Could you tell me how to ignore those and maybe reference titles? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On a separate issue, I used the 'delink date to dmy + common terms' script, which produced the result here. As you see, it inserted a spurious comma which may have been a relic from the 'delink date to mdy + common terms' script. Date delinker (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

See #Script bug above. Gimmetrow 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this but I need feedback from beta testers. All you have to do is go to your monobook replace the current script with:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test_script.js');

The two scripts won't work together. Lightmouse (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Beta testing complete. Use the normal script. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking your bot

Hello. I have started a section on the admin notice board to try to get your bot blocked. Thought you should know.--Rockfang (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped the bot's operation per the above mentioned discussion. I hate to do this again, but I am going to have to warn you against resuming the bot's operation until the issue is resolved. Ideally I would like to see a permanent resolution (ie. consensus that it is OK to use the bot to remove year and date links) so that these discussions don't keep coming up from time to time. Please note that if the bot is resumed while the discussion is ongoing it will be blocked. Shereth 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that 'Lightbot' is still going strong per this diff . The article 1920s has an 's' in it and is not piped or hidden. I am very worried about irreparable damage that is being done to many projects. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. Lightbot delinks decades in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Context#Dates:

• Chronological items—such as days, years, decades and centuries—should generally not be linked unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic. Articles about other chronological items or related topics are an exception to this guideline.

Many human editors would delink it too. Lightmouse (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that the implication of the comments above by Shereth, Rockfang and Nimbus is that users at large and our readers should be denied the benefits of the technological editorial support that bots can provide, where their operation concerns points in our style guides with which certain people take issue. Perhaps we should all go back to using manual telephone exchanges because telephonists were put out of jobs and deserve to have them back in a time of rising unemployment. It seems a fitting analogy. Sure, bots cause false positives, but the benefit they bestow on the project is huge by comparison with the occasional nuisance of a false positive. I do not want to see WP forced back to the last century. Tony (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. However, while this discussion continues, the bot should stop; what is the rush? If there is ever consensus for this bot to operate, it will catch up with these few days in a couple days; if there is consensus to block it, it should be stopped to avoid doing more harm. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive comment, Anderson. The "rush" is to make WP better after years of very bad formatting. Fortunately, we have quite a few dynamic, hard-working editors who are keen to put in the time. They see no reason to be confronted by road-blocks at every intersection. Tony (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Delinking common terms

Lightmouse, I reverted an edit by Lightbot that delinked some common terms at Wicca, namely the seasons of the year, because it is felt these have relevance to the article itself (Wiccan festivities and observances are closely tied to seasons). After seeing instances of edit warring between your automated bot and editors on other articles, I would strongly suggest that you somehow create a blacklist for articles already visited, so the bot will not return for a specific amount of time (say, one or two years). Such automated activity is entirely inappropriate. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to have a list or category of articles which are never visited by a bot for the reason you suggested, I do not feel there should ever be a 'one visit only' limitation on a bot. The whole point of a bot is that it goes around repeatedly to automatically clean up, as articles are continually "improved", these changes need to be given the once over. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

While I would normally agree, the possibility for endless conflict (eventually won by the bot after the human gives up) is just too great. Unless the bot could log exactly what it has done on every specific page so it won't do it again (which seems exorbitantly difficult), a non-permanent Do Not Edit list seems the best route. Bots should not be the instigators of conflict with regards to such controversial issues. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for updating Wicca. If you go back in the history, you will see that I also did the same on 21 October. I do have several methods for avoiding false positives but nobody sees the false positives correctly avoided, of course. It may be possible to use a whitelist on smaller runs. However, in this case we are talking about the seasons and I think the best solution is to simply stop delinking seasons in this mass run. Lightmouse (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wicca is a real problem: the high-value links, of which there are quite a few, are diluted by silly ones like "Europe" (where's that?), "British" (Huh? Never heard of it.), "religion" ("mystery religion" is a good link, but why dilute it with a common dictionary term?), and links to the whole of articles such as "Sun", "Moon", and the seasons, where if they're retained at all, section links to more relevant information should be considered. Why is the linking in such an amateurish state in this article? Hunsterit, please explain how the season articles add to a reader's understanding of the topic "Wicca"? I'd appreciate examples and specific locations. Tony (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the first sentence in this section, I think I made that clear. Seasons are a fairly integral part of the religion. Personally, I think linking them is a good idea in this situation...of course, they aren't valid links in any given article, but here I think they are. Lightmouse, I should point out that the bot *again* delinked them just a few minutes ago. Odd, however, that in all cases, only Summer, Autumn and Winter were delinked...not Spring. As for the rest of the overlinking issue, I will go through the article soon and kill off some of the extraneous ones like Europe and such. Tony1, it isn't necessary to be so condescending when you reply. At the moment, the article is in a state of flux...other editors are considering ways to rearrange and clarify things. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was still working on the code that will avoid seasons. I will stop the bot and upload the new code now. Lightmouse (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded and running. Lightmouse (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, thank you. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hunster—I apologise if I seemed to be condescending. Perhaps I've become a little defensive in the face of continual attacks by those who want to maximise linking. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Tony (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hunster, I don't know if you are reading this section any more but just to answer your comment: "Summer, Autumn and Winter were delinked...not Spring". It would have delinked 'Spring (season)' but 'Spring' is ambiguous. Look at the 'Spring' article and you will see. Lightmouse (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't I feel silly for not noticing that, lol. Thanks :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Date auditing edits

Lightmouse, I notice you have been editing articles to conform to a particular clause in mosnum. I object to these changes, and I have started a discussion at the mosnum talk page, which you can find here. I would appreciate it if you desist from making any further such changes until the issue has been debated. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Can you provide an example article? Lightmouse (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the first change in this edit. You have changed the date from "December 4, 1864" to "4 December 1864". Now as it happens, I think that's fine if you do that in an infobox, for consistency, but I don't think it's fine to make the same sort of change in article body text. Gatoclass (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

People want articles to be consistent. The decision has been made that USS articles are supposed to be dmy. Neither of those were my decision, but that is how it is. Perhaps you need to raise the issue of dmy versus mdy with Wikiproject Ships. Lightmouse (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Where was that decision made? Can you point me to it? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It is apparent from the articles themselves. Perhaps we should ask at Wikiproject Ships. Lightmouse (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can safely say that almost all articles on US ships use international format; apparently the US military does, too. It's a widely accepted exception to the US-related formatting rule. You may wish to peruse the battleships category. Tony (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no hard-and-fast guideline specifically about U.S. Navy ships. You are right that in practice, many are d-m-y format, probably because many are based on the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships which uses that format. This sort of thing (changing date formats) is why a lot of people object to automated (or very nearly so) date "audits" from editors uninvolved with the writing of articles. As much as many of us would like Misplaced Pages (or life, for that matter) to conform to specific rules, the reality is usually more complicated than that. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Knots

You are converting Knot into Kn again! You have been asked not to do this in the past, and have agreed. Now you are doing it again. Please stop.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Where? Lightmouse (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• HMCS Restigouche (DDE 257) Revision as of 19:00, 15 November 2008
• HMCS Kootenay (DDE 258) Revision as of 18:52, 15 November 2008
• HMCS Terra Nova (DDE 259) Revision as of 19:06, 15 November 2008

I guess you have done it in many other places.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you make such a big fuss about the template form invisible to readers. I also see that you relinked the dates which has made the article worse. If the 'kn' form is wrong, perhaps we should go to template:convert to see if they want to ban it. Lightmouse (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you make such an effort to change the "template form invisible to readers". People like "knot" because it's easier to understand. It works. So remove it from your script or automated tool that you are using and just deal with the fact that some people want it spelled out. (Unfortunately, it's that kind of attitude that gets a lot of editors riled up about your and Lightbot's date unlinking activity.) — Bellhalla (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been explained to you before by various users. Abbreviations like Kn makes the text opaque.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Even kn (as you used) is opaque. Editors with a limited knowledge of SI units will be tempted to think "kilowhat?" rather than "knot". Best to spell it out in the wikitext.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a change at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Knots--Toddy1 (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. Instead of criticising people that implement the MOS and the template standard, you are better off addressing the guideline itself. Lightmouse (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Date Script

I don't think it's loading in for me. I don't see it in my toolbox list after I entered it and did, ctrl+shift+r. Govvy (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Aww, wait, it's only in edit mode I see it, now I see. Doh. Sorry. :) Govvy (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a page in your user section that explains your script and it's functions, like a readme? You could use one from a link on your Userpage. Govvy (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• You may find something was written about it here on Tony1's talk page. Date delinker (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think All dates to dmy works so well either. :/ Govvy (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? Can you give an example?

I came across some ordinal dates without the square brackets which I attempted to convert in UK_Singles_Chart_records. However, I noticed that your 'All dates to dmy' script does not perform that function. Date delinker (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Code updated. The 'All dates to dmy' will now fix ordinal dates. Clear your cache and try again. Thanks for the feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I came across some dd mmm yyyy dates (without square brackets) with commas in Jeff Tarango which I attempted to remove using your 'All dates to dmy' script, but failed. My work-around was to first use the 'All dates to dmy' script, followed by 'All dates to dmy' script. Date delinker (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: whatever happened to the script which transformed ISO to dmy and mdy? Date delinker (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Script to add some metric units with just one click

Thanks for the note on my talk page.

I just pretended I was a typical, naive Misplaced Pages editor and tried it out here at South Beach (nightclub).

Now, can you go fix that and make it a proper conversion? Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be delighted to make the change, if you can tell me what you define as 'proper conversion'. Lightmouse (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't correct, is it? What in the world would it mean to "reduce the temperature ... by −7 °C"? Is that the same as raising the temperature by 7 °C?

In any case, that conversion is clearly wrong. And you, like many naive users grabbing ahold of a black box like this, cannot even see the problem even when it is pointed out to you that a problem exists.

The point is, a black box like this maybe "fixes some common errors" as you claimed on my talk page. But on the other hand, it can easily introduce various other types of common errors, as I have just demonstrated. It should say that it reduces the temperature by 10 °C, for the precision of the original measurement (though I'd accept "by 11 °C" as a poorer alternative). Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that reducing the temperature by x degrees is not the same as a temperature of x. The script currently can't discriminate between those two instances and I am not sure if it ever could. The code is intended as a tool to supplement, not substitute, human skills.

• Are you saying that you like the script in general but would like it to be improved?
• Or are you saying that you don't like the script and think it should not be available to users?

Lightmouse (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

— Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)