User:Pedant/Datelinking

your response to my request
Thanks and please continue this conversion at this location. I unlink the following 'dates' only: 'xx century', 'mmm' (month standing alone), 'yyyy' {year standing alone). By 'standing alone', I mean they are not part of the 'mmm dd' or 'mmm dd yyyy' combinations required for date formatting.  As with all my other cleanup edits, I do not obtain permission ahead of time by posting notes to talk pages; nor do I post notes afterwords. I do not see any use for such links; to me, they are just unnecessary and wasteful clutter.  An example is my work and the revert made to it is the 'Gregorio del Pilar' article.   Thanks Hmains 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. As with many disputes, I think this one needs a compromise.  What I suggest is that you agree not to unlink stand-alone years and centuries without discussing on the talk page whether they provide additional context for that particular article, since WP:DATE does say that there is some dispute over whether these should be linked.  We can then try to pursuade Rebecca to stop reverting your unlinking of stand-alone months, per WP:DATE.  Does that sound reasonable to you? --David.Mestel 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think the problem is with anything but standalone years, as there are bots (run by other editors) that are unlinking months and days with no apparant objection by Rebecca. I am not sure what I could put in the talk page other than my assertion that 'the linked years in the article provide no additional context'. Should I do this before I do my unlinking and wait xxx time (very impractical) or after. But, I am not sure that these comments will meet the personal standards set by Rebecca (read her original comments to me carefully).  Of course, I am can try anything you suggest; I just do not want to be faced with more mass reversions which I expect can happen any time now or in the future that she finds something she does not like. I work in fear here. Thanks.  Hmains 21:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How about you put a note on the talk page immediately before unlinking (except for stand-alone months), and then add the page to your watchlist, and be prepared to engage in discussion on the article's talk as to whether it adds any particular context to that article. We can then ask Rebecca not to revert without discussing it on the talk page first.  How about that? --David.Mestel 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This sounds practical and reasonable. I can test it when you say so. Thanks Hmains 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll go and talk to Rebecca, to get her to agree. --David.Mestel 05:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the difference. He would still be doing exactly the same thing - hitting random page, going to an article he's never been to before, and killing all the date links on sight, only he'd be leaving a pointless template comment on the talk page. It's exactly the same thing, if slightly slower. Rebecca 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing removing standalone links to days or months at all, although they strike me as a not very useful way of spending one's time. WP:DATE does note that one should try to come to a consensus on year issues, and I'm happy to do this. However, letting someone spend all their time killing random date links on sight in the exact same way (or very close to it) as did the guy who precipitated the whole original dispute is, IMHO, not a compromise. Rebecca 06:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He's already stated above that he initially plans to do no more than whack a template on the talk page, which means that I'd have to individually dispute each and every case (which by his usual standards may be up to 40 or 50 a day). That is simply a waste of my time and his - time which would be better spent doing something that actually helps the encyclopedia (writing articles in my case, and doing some of his many actually-useful chores in Hmains' case).


 * In any case, there is a fundamental distinction to be made here. If someone stumbles across a link or three they think is useless, I really couldn't care less. When someone dedicates all their time on Wikipedia to expunging each and every one they come across, in the exact same way as the behaviour that caused the policy to be tightened only a couple of months ago, I'm not inclined to be very sympathetic. Rebecca 06:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, this issue has been discussed at length precisely because of a couple of people doing what Hmains has been doing. After many thousands of words, a basic consensus emerged that mass linking and mass delinking was unhelpful, the policy was amended so as not to encourage either side, and everyone else who was doing it stopped. For a month or so now, we've had absolutely no conflict on the issue. If Hmains wants to have the policy re-amended to support his edits, then he's welcome to do that, but there is neither consensus support nor grounds in policy for shooting all date links on sight. Rebecca 06:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I must have missed the last message. It is okay to remove date links sometimes. If you come across one and you don't think it is relevant, remove it, and I'll have no problem with that. This much is a matter of a judgement call, and respects those of us who do find date links useful. What I do have a problem with - and what the policy was changed to prevent - is people who dedicate all their energies to expunging every date link they come across from the encyclopedia, when there is absolutely no consensus that this is acceptable. Every single person who was doing that has now ceased to do so, and I expect no less of Hmains. Rebecca 06:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the judgement? His edit history reveals a rapid-fire succession of edits to random articles (one every two or three minutes) which killed any date links in those articles. Rebecca 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the rollback function is not just for simple vandalism. It is for reverting vandalism and other obvious reversions where the reason for making the revert is immediately obvious to all concerned. In this particular case, the user concerned is using an automated script to make the edits, and I see no good reason for me to waste several hours when the reason for my reverts is crystal clear to all involved. Furthermore, it is impossible to discuss individual changes when a) they number in the hundreds on any given day, and b) the user concerned repeatedly (and I stress repeatedly) refuses to discuss the matter with anyone at all. Rebecca 08:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then that page is out of step with the common understanding of rollback. This is particularly so in the light of freely available third-party tools which make rollback-type abilities available to anyone. There is absolutely no good reason why I should have to take four hours to revert automated edits when the reason for my reversions is bleedingly obvious to all involved. Rebecca 15:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a poll earlier in the year that, from memory, couldn't even reach majority support for that interpretation, although with the myriad growth of policy pages I've got no idea where I'd find it. In any case, however, occasional attempts to enforce the written policy there have met with definite resistance, and to my knowledge no action has ever been taken against anyone for making rollback edits along these lines. This is somewhat understandable when one considers that a) they could now be made by anyone with a download, b) it would be a complete waste of many hours of my time that could be spent helping the encyclopedia, and c) would achieve absolutely nothing. Can you think of anything that wasting four hours of my time manually reverting two hundred automated edits instead of doing the same in fifteen minutes would achieve? Rebecca 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr Mestel: what is the current status of my request. Thanks Hmains 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the patronising, David. I simply cite long-standing practice, and I care not enough to actually find some form of written basis for this. I have justified my rollbacks with reference to logic, reason, and common practice, and you have not given me one good reason why it benefits the project for me to do this manually, instead of reverting the edits in the same way they were made in the first place. Rebecca


 * Frankly, I've had enough of this wikilawyering. I have explained time and time again why I have acted the way I have, and you have not once given one single reason why my actions were not entirely acceptable in the circumstances. If you have any further qualms about this, rather than harassing me with pointless wikilawyering, I suggest that you pursue the set dispute resolution process, which I will vigorously contest. Rebecca 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More or less, yes. One of the big problems with the advocate process on Wikipedia is that it occasionally drags up a relative newbie who simply does not understand how Wikipedia works, and then proceeds under the misunderstanding that policy is equivalent to a real-world law. In any given situation on Wikipedia, common sense will trump policy nearly every time. I explained why I did what I did, and I invited you to respond with how this was unreasonable in the circumstances, something which, despite repeated prompting, you have chosen not to do. Instead, you have engaged in cries of "but the policy! but the policy!". This is the sort of conduct which, frankly, is not only unhelpful, but is what gets the AMA such a downright bad name. Rebecca 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't, however, have an advantage. He makes automated edits. I make automated reversions. This is entirely reasonable. Rebecca 15:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you had so much glanced at his contributions, you would have noticed that he uses the AutoWikiBrowser to automate his edits. This is why he is able to make so many edits so fast. Rebecca 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My mistake. He uses a special script for date linking only, which is visible at User:Hmains/monobook.js. Are you happy now? Rebecca 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If Hmains wishes to change the relevant guideline to support killing all date links on sight, he is welcome to propose such a move and attempt to gain consensus for it. However, at this point in time, it is abundantly clear that there is no such consensus, and he should not be making these edits in the first place. Nevertheless, if he wishes to do the act of making all of these manually, I guess I'll have to revert them manually. That said, both of these are a colossal waste of both of our time, when Hmains could be doing plenty of edits that are actually within the boundaries of the manual of style. Rebecca 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's about as far from a compromise as one could possibly get. This would mean that Hmains would be able to kill every date link he finds on sight (as he has done in every article he has hit up until this point), and would require myself or anyone else to dispute every individual link on every individual talk page and argue for its reintroduction. Rebecca 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Um no. That applies to verifiability issues, where there is the chance that, like, people might sue us and stuff. In any case, please cease wasting my time with this. No amount of wikilawyering on your part is going to change the manual of style, which is what Hmains needs to do if he wishes to mass-delink articles and not be reverted on sight. Rebecca 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely. They should be discussed on a case by case basis, and not expunged on sight because someone has a delinking fetish. This is the point we came to after weeks of discussion, and it was a point which was enough to convince every single other person who was doing mass delinking to stop. Rebecca 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. What possible benefit is there to going to such lengths to find some way that Hmains can fulfil his fetish? Some of us find date links useful. Some people don't. Everyone else in this entire dispute has accepted this, and just as I (nor the numerous people who agreed in the discussion we had about this) don't go running around mass-linking articles, neither do the other side mass-delink them. There are far more useful things that Hmains could be doing with his time than individually debating tons of individual links on tons of individual talk pages. How on earth does such behaviour help the encyclopedia? Rebecca 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See above. Rebecca 02:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Date links
Hi, I'm talking to you on behalf of my client, Hmains. We have become concerned at your persistent reversion of my client's removal of date links. We have therefore come to offer a compromise. Hmains agrees not to revert stand-alone year or century links without leaving a note as to why on the article's talk page. In return, you agree not to revert his removals without first discussing and obtaining consensus on the talk page. Does that sound reasonable? --David.Mestel 05:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just asking you to have a look at WP:DATE - where stand-alone links to months or days are discouraged, and, since years and centuries are recognised as a bone of contention, efforts should be made to gain consensus. --David.Mestel 06:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea is that he will keep the page on his watchlist and engage in discussion with you or anyone else who thinks the link removal was inappropriate. --David.Mestel 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that like saying that it's OK to decapitalise second and subsequent words in article titles, but not to go through the 'pedia looking for and fixing them? --David.Mestel 06:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to get rid of what I see as your specious argument that it's OK to remove date links sometimes, but not OK to go around looking for them and removing them where appropriate. Either it's right or it's not. If it is right, then it's OK to do it frequently, if not, then not at all. Are you prepared to accept that? --David.Mestel 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you'd show me the courtesy of replying. --David.Mestel 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that you're misrepresenting what my client does, or intends to do. He is not going to "shoot all date links on sight", as you put it.  He is going to consider each on an individual basis, and, if he feels that they add no relevant context, remove them.  You can then discuss this on the article's talk page. --David.Mestel 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would like to take issue with individual removals, you should do so on the article's talk page, but please don't just revert them on sight, and especially do not use your admin rollback function, as that is only for simple vandalsim. --David.Mestel 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:ADMIN:"Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism" --David.Mestel 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any policy cites to support your point of view? --David.Mestel 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that like saying, "Well, we should forget that the Encyclopædia Britannica says this, because I'm sure I read somewhere that the other."? --David.Mestel 06:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you found my last comment patronising, but don't you think that you're being rather arrogant in disregarding policy in favour of your own point of view? --David.Mestel 16:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem not to have noticed the previous, so I'm reminding you. --David.Mestel 14:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you confirm that you are not prepared to discuss the legitemacy of your use of the admin rollback function to revert my client's edits? --David.Mestel 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You want a reason other than policy? I'll give you one. Fairness and natural justice. You are engaged in what could be termed an edit war with my client, and, although this state of affairs is of course undesirable, while it persists, it is unfair that either of you should have an advantage. --David.Mestel 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, he makes automated edits? --David.Mestel 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that AWB doesn't delink dates. --David.Mestel 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I wish he'd told me that.  But are you prepared to not use admin rollback on edits not made with that script? --David.Mestel 15:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for being so reasonable. But are you prepared to come to some sort of compromise on the substantive issue. For example, perhaps Hmains could monitor the talk pages of the pages he removes date links from, and if you have objections, you two can discuss them on a case-by-case basis. --David.Mestel 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC) But isn't it a general principle on Wikipedia that the onus is on the person wishing something to be included to justify it? --David.Mestel 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Um...no. The MoS basically says that there is no consensus on standalone years, so obviously they should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. --David.Mestel 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about this: if Hmains comes across an article in which he believes that there are unnecessary date links, he will leave a message on the talk page, and/or place a template or cat, if a suitable one can be devised. He will then leave this for a period of 24 or 48 hours.  If you have an objection, you can raise it, and you two can talk on a case-by-case basis.  Otherwise, he can remove the links.  How does that sound? --David Mestel(Talk) 19:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmains feels that, stylistically, articles read better without unnecessary date links. Therefore, to make the encyclopedia as good as it can be, he wants to remove those date links that are unnecessary. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)