User talk:Lightmouse/Archive/2008Jan

Timeline of New Zealand history
I've reverted your edit. most of it was okay but breaking the 1930 in New Zealand types links was hurt the article. If you could update your script to not hit these sort of things it would be good. If you can not affect these then you should probably do the rest of the stuff- SimonLyall (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I will leave that article alone for now. Thanks for attending to it. Lightmouse (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Script error?
Can you add non-break spaces when you add spaces between numbers and units of measure? I noted in this edit that you moved the temperature symbol, but didn't add a non-break space to go along with the move. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct, the script ensures that numbers and units are separated by a space. I prefer not to become involved in the issue of non-breaking spaces. If other editors want to add them, that is fine by me. I hope you don't mind. Thanks for your feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Breaking URLs
Re this edit. Adjust your script to ignore URLs, please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It applies several checks to try to avoid URLs. That one slipped through. I have updated the code to address it. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

reply
Mouse—are you referring to our removal of the autodud from the date range? Aside from whatever rules that Arwad guy might have invested in, it just looks so odd at the end of the list, as though it's somehow privileged over the other items. Tony  (talk)  01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was what I meant. I have put something on his talk page. Lightmouse (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Autodud and bugzilla
Are you aware of [t this discussion], recently hotting up? Tony  (talk)  15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I happened to see what you said at User talk:Arwel Parry earlier. I read the bugzilla discussion with interest. Lightmouse (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unknown topic
(reverted edit "called" back to "declared"-called diminishes the intent of SOS, to Honor and Officially recognize Gladys as the Empress of Soul, as opposed to pretenders to the title!!!!) other than stubborness, would you please provide a reason and start a discussion before reverting my edit?!Comprendo (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I did not see this before. This is because you put it at the top rather than the bottom of my talk page. I do not know what you are referring to. Can you specify the article and the edit please? Lightmouse (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yards at Marquise Walker
Please see MOSNUM. Yards in football are a statistical measure equal in length to the common english unit of length. However, they are not converted in general usage when referring to this football statistic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not worried too much about the edit to that article. However, I am not sure that I can see the prohibition in principle. I have taken this to the talk page of the manual for clarification of the principle. Feel free to comment there. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the standard/metric conversion script help on Southbury. Drhamad (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you substing the unit template?
What's with this: ? I don't understand the benefit of your changes? Stevage 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is my impression that the unit template will be superceded by the convert template. See its talk pages and archives. I may be wrong. Lightmouse (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop doing this. Replacing a template call with the substed text is harmful. If the {unit ha} is eventually "superseded" by {convert}, then either {unit ha} can be rewritten in terms of {convert}, or a bot could replace all the {unit ha} calls with {convert} calls. There's no reason to pre-emptively subst these template calls, and there's not even any definitive consensus. Would you mind reverting your changes? Thanks. Stevage 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing links
Hi, I noticed that you removed internal links from the page Intelligentsia by using some script. I suppose this was a mistake. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 15:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * The edit was a deliberate intention to improve the article. Lightmouse (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed you also removed an internal link from Lawton, Oklahoma using your winc script... specifically you un-wiki-fied the year 1901. Can you please explain how this improves the article?  Weathermandan (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Links that add value are harder to see when surrounded by links that do not. I think that there is nothing in the article 1901 that makes it easier to understand the article. However, if you disagree and want to discuss the principle, the appropriate page is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). People there know much more about this than I do. Lightmouse (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest you find more helpful ways to improve the encyclopaedia? Making large numbers of very borderline changes with an automated tool is disruptive and has a minimal beneficial impact. Why not write an article, or go through some of the articles in the cleanup queue or something by hand, rewriting and restructuring? Just a suggestion. Stevage 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)