| Revision as of 15:34, 15 August 2006 editMegapixie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users11,600 edits →Definition of 'rapid en-masse': I'll try and shift the discussion.← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:17, 15 August 2006 edit undoImprov (talk | contribs)5,494 edits →Definition of 'rapid en-masse'Next edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| :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. ] 15:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | :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. ] 15:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *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. --] 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:17, 15 August 2006
Archive
See: Archive index
Hank Williams peer review
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)
Date delinking (again)
Hello Bobblewik, I see you have been repeatedly blocked for continual delinking of dates. Despite extensive past discussion at Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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).
On a related note...
Actually I also don't understand why your unregistered bot doesn't implement this recommendation from Misplaced Pages: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)
Definition of 'rapid en-masse'
- '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)
- 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)
- 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)