User talk:Quadell: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:53, 25 March 2006 editXtra (talk \| contribs)4,023 edits →Thanks ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:00, 26 March 2006 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits →Thanks: please stayNext edit →
Line 72:		Line 72:
	:Thanks for your hard work and dedication. —] \| ] 22:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)		:Thanks for your hard work and dedication. —] \| ] 22:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
	::I also support your efforts here and think you have been hard done by. ] 23:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)		::I also support your efforts here and think you have been hard done by. ] 23:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
			:::Wow, Quadell, don't leave. This is a tempest in a teapot, it really is. You're highly respected and loved around here. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:00, 26 March 2006

Quadell's talk archives

The full archive

Just the most recent

WP:DATE-associated edits

Hello Quadell,

I was curious as to whether you're using a bot to effect the edits you've been making to articles regarding WP:DATE. If you are, how does it work, please? —Encephalon 17:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been using a bot, because I don't know how to set one up. I wish I did - it would be much easier! – Quadell 17:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Quadell. Does that mean you are manually going through each article, deciding which years/dates/time periods are not quite relevant, and delinking them? I seem to recall that Bobblewik (?sp) has a .js script that helps with the date thing—are you using that? The reason I ask is that I'm not sure such changes are always agreed with by editors who regularly edit/watch certain articles. I daresay these sorts of edits should probably not be made with an automated feature with little human oversight. If you're making the changes yourself, however, in line with your views on WP:DATE, that's commendable. Of course, other editors may see relevance where you do not, and may revert. So goes the wiki. Anyway, I was just seeking clarification. Thanks! —Encephalon 18:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am using a javascript to suggest changes, but I'm still going through each suggested change and manually verifying them. If you disagree with any of the delinkings, feel free to put the link back in in that instance. All the best, – Quadell 18:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My block

Blocking me was inappropriate, Talrais. I'd like to ask that you bring the block up on WP:AN/I to get some feedback from other admins. – Quadell 19:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Quadell_block, and I was in the process of writing a message here explaining why. Why was blocking you inappropriate? I feel that your edits were inappropriate. Preventing you from continuing to make them is accepted as part of the blocking policy. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like someone's edits is not a good enough reason to block someone. We both know you don't it when people remove links from isolated dates (e.g. "He was born in 1950.") We also both know that WP:DATES recommends that isolated years not be linked. This is a content dispute, but if you look through Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, I think you'll see that that's not a blockable issue. – Quadell 19:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block you because I don't like your edits. I blocked you because you made exactly the same kind of edits which Bobblewik was blocked many times for. This is not a content dispute. This is you trying to circumvent consensus decision making by refusing to accept the disagreement clearly evident on the talk page. Please do not make these edits. Please just help debate the issue and let's try and reach a sensible compromise on the issue. If you promise not to make any more of these edits and to help in the forming of a compromise, I will unblock you. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept that there is disagreement. I hear that you don't want me to make these edits, and I respectfully decline. I think these edits are appropriate. I am quite willing to discuss this issue with you and work toward a compromise, but you had not attempted to discuss it with me at all before you blocked me. – Quadell 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The block log says that I was unblocked by SlimVirgin. But oddly enough, when I try to edit, it still says Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Quadell". Does anyone know why? – Quadell 19:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked Quadell because there's no basis in policy for the block, and even if there is, this was premature. Quadell, it might be a good idea not to continue with the edits until they've been discussed, because date delinking seems to be a sensitive issue. I'll sort out the autoblocker for you. Cheers, SlimVirgin 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you should be good to go. SlimVirgin 19:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarah. I understand that this is a sensitive issue, but I still intend to remove links on solitary years in accordance with the manual of style. I don't like the precedent it sets when one admin says "Don't enforce this Misplaced Pages policy or else I'll block you for it". If I were to cave in and cease editing in accordance with Talrais's demands, wouldn't I be allowing one person's opinion to overrule consensus? All the best, – Quadell 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If he wasn't warned, he shouldn't have been blocked, especially for changes so extremely unimportant to the encyclopedia. This block is very counterproductive. I would suggest Talrias find a few articles to write. Even if Quadell was going against a guideline, it should have been submitted to WP:AN/I to wait for other comments—or are there some pressing matters related to date formatting that I am not aware of? — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-03-24 19:52

We're going to run out of dates on Misplaced Pages by tomorrow at some time in the afternoon :-O Cyde Weys 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Quadell's changes... I almost always link the birth/death years in an article, as well as years for important events in the person's life. I've written over a thousand articles and have done this in every one. So, I would disagree with Quadell simply because I don't want to go back and unlink all of those dates :) If Quadell wants to delink them, feel free. It's not important. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-03-24

Can I ask that rather than discussing the same thing in two places, we discuss it just in one? Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Quadell block is where I initially reported the block and I have responded to similar comments from others there. Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 20:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Quadell, I've proposed a compromise here. SlimVirgin 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing date links for the time being

Given the ongoing debate raging about date link removal (of which you are well aware), which has not achieved any consensus or conclusion, it would be best if you stopped delinking dates for the time being. There isn't any delinking that you can do today that can't be done after the debate concludes in favor of removing solitary date links (if it does). What you are doing is, in a sense, deleting an article that clearly isn't speedy before it's AfD has concluded. You don't know what consensus is on this issue any more than I do. That the MoS supports your actions is commendable, but that portion of the MoS is currently what is in dispute and therefore it is a weak support argument until the debate has concluded. Respectfully, --Durin 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. But, if I might suggest, have some faith in m:Eventualism. This debate might rage for years. Who knows? In the meantime, there isn't any serious harm being caused by having the dates linked. It does not affect the functionality of Misplaced Pages and offers at worst minimal intrusion into readability. Five years from now, this will have been resolved. Maybe you, Ambi and Talrias won't be party to the solution of it. I don't know. But, it will have been resolved and at that point in time people can refer back to the solution.
You know consensus is very important to Misplaced Pages. Of course, with ever larger groups building consensus is more difficult than ever. But, it's fundamental to our forward progress here. Neither you nor I can do everything here. We have to believe that somebody will eventually get around to it. So, if you don't get around to delinking every date that needs to be delinked in the project, it's no big deal. In fact, I doubt you could get around to all the 1 million articles and do it. Have faith that it will be done. In the meantime, do your best to help facilitate consensus on the issue.
If you think Ambi and Talrias stand alone, then see if that's the case. Identify their core issues, and see if you can address them yet still delink the dates. Work towards the compromise. Please don't plow ahead with more date delinkings as it does nothing but fan the flames of the debate. In microcasm, it's kind of like the userbox war. It would have been very bad idea for someone to delete userboxes en masse during the height of that debate. Likewise here, it is not a good idea to plow ahead with more date delinkings...even if this debate takes another couple of years, given the notable lack of damage being caused to the project by having dates linked. --Durin 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For once, I entirely agree with Durin. A consensus does seem to be being reached on that talk page, and even if I don't entirely agree with it, it would seem to be going against automated mass-delinking. In the meantime, please have the courtesy to stop until that is resolved. If not, I'll have little choice but to start mass-rollbacking your edits. Ambi 04:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on seeing the articles you've been hitting, I've gone and rollbacked all the still-rollbackable edits since your block. As a courtesy, I didn't manually expunge the rest, but I will do so next time if you continue in this manner. Ambi 04:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

block

Hey, Quadell--I got your e-mail, though some time after the hubbub had died down (I'm still not here). It seems like things are fairly calm at the moment. I'm not familiar with this Bobblewik situation (though Tony1 convinced me of the foolishness of indiscriminate date-linking a long time ago), but I'm disappointed to see an admin block another admin with such flimsy reasoning--this seems like inviting wheel-warring, and remarkably similar to what put Carnildo in this pickle. By the way, I saw your name on my watchlist for the Catapult list--thanks for doing a few of those. I'll be back in a few weeks, probably, to finish off whatever's left. My best wishes in the meantime, Chick Bowen 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi - we haven't interacted before, but I wanted to say thanks for the work you have been doing around here. Note: I re-reverted the date link nonsense by Ambi that showed up on my watchlist. I am strongly in favor of ridding those useless date links. Enjoy your wikibreak, but please come back. Vsmith 15:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ambi and Talaris are way out of line. I support your work. David D. (Talk) 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work and dedication. —Viriditas | Talk 22:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I also support your efforts here and think you have been hard done by. Xtra 23:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Quadell, don't leave. This is a tempest in a teapot, it really is. You're highly respected and loved around here. SlimVirgin 00:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)