Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:38, 5 October 2011

Bot delinking Acre

I reinstated this wikilink at Palace of Whitehall, with the needs of the project's international readership in mind, but the 'bot countermanded me. I think that acre should be linked wherever it appears, but I'm only concerned with being reverted at this page just now. I have a very vague recollection that 'bots weren't supposed to revert real editors, but I may be wrong on this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Whilst I might be inclined to agree with you that a link to this rather 'parochial' unit may be desirable as a word that is not universally well known, the fact that the bot inserts {{convert}} template, which gives other alternative measurements (e.g. hectares or sq km) means that it is unlikely to be misunderstood as something else. Linking would appear to be superfluous. --Ohconfucius 10:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you got reverted. Some mass fixes of technical issues are one-off, or very rare and are therefore unlikely to do that. Tackling units of measure is a janitorial job that has to go on all the time so it's unfortunately more likely. I think the consensus is that a link is less necessary in the presence of a conversion than without. That doesn't mean a link shouldn't be present at all. Just so we're clear, can you confirm that you want 'acre' to be linked always, with and without conversions? Lightmouse (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Yes, my point was that it's sufficiently obscure to merit a link, and no, it's silly if I'm advocating an exception for just one page. On reflection I'm suggesting that acre should keep its link on all pages. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the word 'acre' is obscure. It's actually a fairly common word in English texts. However, I definitely think it's difficult for metric readers to visualise in the absence of a conversion. That's why I think 'acre' should always have a conversion. We know from web statistics that low-added-value links don't get clicks. A link to 'acre' in that article is one of the lowest value links it has. I'm fairly sure it won't get clicked. However, I've updated the article to give acre a link. I'll have a think about what to do next with the bot based on your welcome feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion.

Hello,

An article you have helped edit, Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II (which was formerly entitled "Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories") has been proposed for deletion.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies

Hey Lightmouse, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic conversion deemed bug.

I question the benefit of using {{convert}} to do dynamic conversion of (e.g.) km to miles (as you have done in various articles), especially where the equvialent has already been provided. Such conversions need to be done only once, not every time an article is generated. And if an editor feels a "round" number is appropriate then you should not be unilaterally replacing it without prior discussion. – J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I welcome feedback. Just on the technical side of things, can you clarify what you mean by:

• "conversions need to be done only once, not every time an article is generated"

? Lightmouse (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't think there is support for rolling out {{convert}} on articles that have already been manually converted, and I don't think Lightbot has approval to do this, and this is a deceptive edit summary. Hesperian 23:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's generally known that template conversions are more reliable than manual conversions. But many editors, possibly including yourselves are unaware of just how frequent the errors are. For example, at least two of the four articles reverted by user:Johnson contained errors that were fixed by the template. The general error rate isn't as high as that but they're significant. Humans just aren't as good at arithmetic as computers. Arithmetic errors are almost undetectable by human editors. I've seen some that have been there for years. There are also many format defects and inconsistencies.

I note the comment: "conversions need to be done only once, not every time an article is generated". Is that the source of your unhappiness with templates? Lightmouse (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

{{convert}} is syntactic sugar. It makes things easier for experienced editors, but erects a barrier to entry for newbs by replacing simple, intuitively understandable wikicode with an opaque template call. Hesperian 00:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My watchlist is full of these diffs, as far as I can tell you're simply doing a mass rollout of the {{convert}} template under a deceptive edit summary. I'm blocking. Hesperian 00:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's unreasonable. There's no evidence that I'm trying to deceive you or anyone else. You haven't provided a reason why the edits are harmful and yet I've explained why they're helpful. You've made multiple assertions and instead of a two-way debate, you reach for your gun. A thirty minute cycle from asking a question to pulling the trigger. Shame on you! Lightmouse (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I blocked a malfunctioning bot account. Bot accounts have no claim on my civility. Nor has blocking a bot account any impact on my ability to engage in discussion. Hesperian 00:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my use of the word deceptive though. The following diffs, being all of the Lightbot edits to appear on my watchlist today, all share the trait of having an edit summary that does not reflect the true nature of the edit: . In every case, the edit is a straightforward rollout of {{convert}} over the top of manually converted units. I assert that this is harmful; that you are not approved to do it; and that the edit summary is misleading. I withdraw the unintended assertion that you are being deliberately misleading. Hesperian 00:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to be civil with humans. I'm a human. Blocking without discussion wasn't reasonable or necessary. Shoot first is a bad policy. It may make you feel good but it's not good for the project. Put your gun away and behave respectfully with me as I've been behaving with you. Your assertion of harm needs to be backed up with a statement of what the harm is. If you don't like the edit summary, you could tell me what edit summary you prefer. Hardly a blocking crime. Sheesh, please cooperate with the Misplaced Pages project.

Now, just on the technical side of things, please can you tell me:

• the block isn't visible to me on the Lightbot page. Why is that?
• I understand that there is a formal process to request unblocks but that isn't shown on the Lightbot page. What is it and is that also supposed to be visible to me?

Lightmouse (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess it is up to you how you interpret me blocking your malfunctioning bot. You can consider it uncivil if you wish. I've been considered uncivil in the past for all sorts of odd reasons, such as my correcting an editor's article prose. You're also at liberty to employ rhetoric like "crime", "put your gun away" and "please cooperate with the Misplaced Pages project". And feel free to diminish my concern at your misleading edit summary by mischaracterising it as "I don't like it". It's all good. Whether my block was "reasonable or necessary" is of course a matter of opinion, not fact. I think it was entirely reasonable, and I think the requirement that it be necessary is setting the bar a bit too high. The bot was doing unapproved things that I don't think it should have been doing, under a misleading edit summary. In my opinion, that is sufficient justification to block it pending resolution. Hesperian 01:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. A note to Lightmouse: templates do overload long articles due to the wikimedia parsing limits, and substituting them with plain text does speed up loading (experimentally verified). Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome here. I've seen people debate it before and conclude that templates are fine. My technical knowledge doesn't permit me to say one way or the other. When the block is lifted, I'd be happy to try and track down an appropriate venue for such a discussion. Have you any idea how I get the block lifted (I thought there would be a standard template with instructions)? Lightmouse (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

To Hesperian, the bot IS approved to perform such conversions. See BRFA/Lightbot 5/6/7/8/9/12/13/14/17, amongst others. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)