Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dabomb87 (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 30 November 2008 (→You beat me...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Werdnabot

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Real-life workload: 8.5

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

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 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am taking absolutely no notice of this attempt to bully and intimidate me into submission, by someone who is pursuing his own self-indulgent crusade. I will continue to assist editors to comply with WP's style guides. Tony (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with unlinking dates, but this kind of change of style needs to happen gradually rather than forced though en masse. We need to give time for people who did not already participate in the discussion to join in, rather than saying it has already been decided. I haven't been watching you edits so I don't know if this applies to you, just a general comment. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive comment. But ... "forced through en masse" is a bit spin-like; I'd say "editors are spared manual compliance with the style guides by supervised automation", and that there's no earthly reason to go slow in this. Does it frighten you? Tony (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed the dramaz, but this all is amazingly absurd. Must be delayed effect of the full moon. Gimmetrow 02:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on previous warning about delinking dates

I invite you to have a look at this edit warring case. Edits like the one you made to the Bernard Jackman, Regina, Crown Princess of Austria, Nick Littlemore, James Morrison (singer), William Paterson (jurist), and University of Zagreb articles violate the previous warning and are inconsistent with the result of the edit warring case. Tennis expert (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your "order" has be "violated"? You must be so upset. Tony (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal

The only way that change will ever be effected is if someone is bold and makes the change. It is having someone respected enough by the community to create a new system and then getting that system recognised and respected. You will obviously face opposition from the "cabal" but that is to be expected. Your proposal on my talkpage looks good to me, and in theory no-one should have a problem with it. It is codifying what should already exist. I suspect the problem will come in finding "coordinators" active enough to monitor the page, and respected enough to not evoke sentiments such as "you have no authority, the arbitrary committee, biased" etc. You also have to make sure it doesn't turn into a stalking contest, or witch-hunt. I remember a few days ago, someone following an admin round disputing every A7 deletion that he/she made and putting them at DRV everytime. This process could force admins/editors ("good" and "bad") from the project because they feel they are being harrassed or that they are on the naughty step. So, in principle I agree with the need for some system, and I agree with what you propose, I just see some potentially troubling areas. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We certainly don't want that to happen. The aim is to increase respect for admins, actually. Yes, you're right about those challenges. I can't put the time into designing and organising it yet (RL is horribly work-stressed at the moment), but will try next week. Tony (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And when I do, I'll certainly ask for your advice on the draft design of the process. Tony (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Watch your back

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Dabomb87 reported by Locke Cole, User:Locke Cole/Arbitration/Date unlinking. You could be next. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I feel greatly honoured to be in such esteemed company. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Who the heck cares. I keep on delinking the dates. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Threats, bullying and gratuitous orders flung around like confetti should be flushed down the pan immediately. Tony (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's had a go at me at here at WP:AN?Edit warring and failed. I think our two cases, taken together, amounts to a lack of endorsement for these attacks on us. Ohconfucius/Date delinker (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be an increasingly desperate campaign, picking us off one by one. It's not working. Tony (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea desperate campaign, desperate people. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail regarding some clarifications. Hopefully this will clear up some misconceptions. seicer | talk | contribs 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder FAC restarted

Note to all !voters on the original Major depressive disorder FAC: The FAC for that article has been restarted at Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

about that RfC ...

hello Tony - that RfC you launched at MOSNUM wasn't listed at WP:RFC/A because it lacked a timestamp. i added one, and now it's listed properly. i thought i should let you know about that, since i'm not sure if you had some reason for omitting the timestamp, or if it got deleted after you posted it or what ... anyway it's listed properly now, which i trust is a good thing. Sssoul (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't see it. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also listed it at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/RFCstyle/manual Ohconfucius (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

hm, curiouser and curiouser - after i added the timestamp it showed up at Template:RFCstyle_list, so why isn't it at WP:RFC/A?? ah the wonders of technology ... thanks for listing it manually, Ohconfucius Sssoul (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ps: doublechecking the listing at Template:RFCstyle_list, the RfC Tony launched is currently the first "automatic" one listed, in addition to Ohconfucius's gallant manual add of it. but the link in the "automatic" listing leads to the MOSNUM talk page, not to the proper section for this RfC - that's not good, since the old birth/death-date RfC is still at the top of that page, so newcomers to the discussion might easily be distracted by that one. can someone archive that old one, and/or relist the new one so that the "section=" entry leads to the right place on the page? it would be a drag if anyone could later claim that this RfC "doesn't count" because it wasn't listed properly ... Sssoul (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for this: I'm a computer klutz, and very short of time for WP until mid-week. I see there that I need to make the wording of the "reason" much more explicit; it's terrible at the moment. Shall do. Tony (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've changed the "reasons" at the RfC on MOSNUM talk to "Three important proposals for changing MOSNUM with respect to (1) the linking of date formats, (2) date autoformatting, and (3) requirements for auto changes". But still the old "three things that are causing intermittent disruption" appears at the RfC style page. No big deal, I suppose, but it would be nice to broadcast the real content to the communicty! Tony (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates can take a while to update. I'll purge the cache and see if that makes a difference. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

the "reason" looks good now, and it's listed at WP:RFC/A as well - hallelujah. i've just amended the "section=" bit to match the real name of the section, and i hope that'll cause it to link directly to the right part of the page, once the bot catches up ... thanks everybody and swing on Sssoul (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• What would I do without you people? Thanks! Back to my clients in a few minutes. Relentless until mid-week. Tony (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I thought listing was of prime importance. Thanks for the fine-tuning. BTW, Cole and expert are going around spamming talk pages about me again. Ho hum... Ohconfucius (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Tony for doing all the hard work required to finally get rid of the date linking. Either they will be de-linked, or the developers will finally (after two years of ignoring it) implement a less annoying method of auto-formatting. Either outcome would be largely because of your hard work on the issue. That said, please don't bite those who are used to the old formatting who will continue to show up and complain. Bot editing can be very bad as it disrupts the normal edit-revert-discuss cycle, since bots cannot be reverted effectively without using an other bot. Consensus, even when established, takes a while to spread through this huge project. Forcing it through only causes backlashes. Again, thank you. I always (for years) thought date linking was a bad solution, but I didn't take the effort to really do something about it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind to say this. I don't know whether I can fully meet your expectations WRT the bot thing (I can't use a bot, of course, since I have a Mac). Thanks again! Tony (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep an eye on Cole: he's made another attempt at spoiling the RfC if not trying to sabotage it outright. I've just reverted him again. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am actually not entirely against the use of bots here. But if they are used, hordes of people who doesn't know about the consensus will show up at MOSNUM and the bots talk page. They must be treated respectfully, explaining the reasons for the change, even if a gazillion others have made the same complaint before. I still have bad memories of the Betacommandbot fight (1-2 years ago, over fair use tagging). --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse and Colonies Chris are our two bright boys who've acquired expertise in the use of bots for this purpose. What is striking is that both are unfailingly polite to anyone who has complained, and (particularly LM, who's more engaged in bot and script development) use feedback constructively. It's bot and script management at its best, IMO. Tony (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to set aside a sliver of my WP time to do exactly that (explaining the reasons for date unlinking to curious users). Feel free to remind me that I volunteered :-)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I will; thanks, GMW. Tony (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations of "vandalism"

Tony, please drop the nonsense about "vandalism" with respect to my post. I can't speak to the green box, as it was not my doing. However, you know perfectly well that a neutrally worded note about autoformatting is not vandalism at all, no matter how much you might choose to argue to the contrary. I'm surprised that you completely failed to even mention the availability of the software patch in your "RfC", despite being very aware of the discussion on Bugzilla (you've even contributed to it.) I'd like to assume good faith, as I cannot imagine why you would want to leave out information that is directly relevant to the questions posed in the RfC. I would think that the fact a software patch is available, that it addresses concerns expressed about autoformatting, and that the developer specifically rejected your own arguments against autoformatting would be worth noting. --Ckatz_spy 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop me vomiting at the spin, which would do the Bush administration proud. It's the position of the commentary, not its existence, that is the vandalism. Tony (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Permission to certain people (who know who they are) to revert spam and destructive commentary on this talk page while my time is still restricted at WP. Tony (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question regarding record charts

I can't find this in MOSDATE and I recall it being discussed not too long ago. Is there a reason to prefer "number 1", "No. 1", "#1" or "number one" when discussing a hit song? Gimmetrow 07:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have that memory too, but can't think where it might be. The middle two are fine by me; I don't like the lower-case n or the spelling out of the number. Tony (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That discussion happened at either WT:MOS, or more likely, WT:MOSNUM, months ago, lost somewhere in those horrid archives. At that time, Tony said not to use # in prose, but to use it in charts, preferring No. 1 to #1 in prose, but accepting #1 in charts and tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Two kinds of dashes

There are two kinds of dashes enumerated afterward: em dashes and en dashes. Or, there are two kinds of dash, the en dash and the em dash. Mixing the numbers, "two kinds of dash, em dashes and en dashes", is cumbersome. —C.Fred (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right; I failed to see the larger context. Tony (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That's part of the beauty of Misplaced Pages: there's always another set of eyes coming back to look at the edit and proof it. I've been on the other side of the coin any number of times myself. —C.Fred (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should probably start watching the discussions there, doubly since one of the things I have on my wish list this holiday season is the AP Stylebook. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion of your RfC

Hey Tony, some users (you could probably guess who they are) want to transclude the RfC that you started onto another page. It has been suggested that you approve of the transclusion first, so I am notifying you. Here is the thread: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Page_growth. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tony...

Hi Tony. Just a quick apology for the crap going on with regard your admin watch talk page. "tennis expert" has abundantly not retired and seems content to hit and run from any serious discussion including his bad reverts which remove maintenance tags and reintroduce redirects, bad markup and improper capitalisation.

On a lighter note, one week before I'm down under, looking forward to all that "culture"! It'll be a bit easier going than India I think.... All the best to you. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust that you were not in Mumbai at the time. Tony (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully not, we'd left for Malaysia a week earlier. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In WA's time zone already? ... Welcome. Tony (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All boxed in (not)

Yes! -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten you were in the "let's get real about infoboxes" faction. Hoary, where have you been all this time, during the most fiery phase of the date wars? Tony (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just crawled back under my rock, O supereditor. I missed the date wars in one sense, didn't miss them in another. Actually I've long regretted my misstep in (resulting from a misunderstanding of) your earlier effort to have some new template for these date things. I'm also rather pissed off with the otherwise tolerable (London) Guardian for switching to the odd format MDY; if Youessians like this odd sequence then bully for them, but it seems bizarre to me (and actually I prefer the Japanese YMD). What with stuff in the real world and alarming rumblings here, I haven't been doing much here recently that's been very constructive; in my free time instead dawdling in the used bookshops and picking up far too many potentially write-uppable treasures, among them a lovingly assembled collection of the earlier work by this obscure figure, the kind of thing that gives vanity publishing a good name. (Yes, "BeeBooks" -- see also "Bee Books" -- is a vanity imprint; perhaps they'll put out anything, and the average is indeed uninspiring, but at their best the content is first rate, and a lot of their books are rightly shelved at the best libraries here.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Noetica recently had a ball in used and new bookshops in China: amazing variety of English-language books. Tony (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You beat me...

You seem to have beat me to delinking Lumos3's disruptive relinkings... Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)