User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2007/May

wikilinking
I noticed someone just got stung on a Featured Article Candidacy for meaningless wikilinks, on American Goldfinch you linked generic years and months. I guess the issue is we could end up with an all-blue article, so the suggestion was made to keep them reasonably specific. Thanks for helping though. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 12:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that meaningless links are bad. I did not link anything, I *unlinked*. Your revert relinked them all again. Please check again. Lightmouse 14:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed you delinked those also. I agree that it is a little silly to link generic years, but the style guidelines to suggest this be done.  I am not agreeing with the policy, just noting why it seems to happen.--Mitamarine 22:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Where does it say to link them? Lightmouse 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

About bot-status
Yeah, you should really apply for it ;-) . Anyway, you could also go into your preferences and check the box for "Mark all edits minor by default". I think I would say they are. This box are found at "My preferences"- and then "Editing". I'm getting used to your comment "minor edit" now, but it could perhaps have been better with something like "adjusting number of links to sane level" instead? Just thinking here...Greswik 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips. On your advice, I have changed the preference to 'minor edits'. The reason that I previously did not was that I thought that I did not want to debate whether it was major or minor. I don't care either way. As for the edit summary, I like to keep it very short. Long summaries about trivia are distracting and it is worse if they are frequent. But I will think of something more explicit.


 * I am surprised that the number of links is so 'insane' as you put it. To be honest, I would rather not do this and would prefer it if somebody else did it. Perhaps there is somebody that can do it better than me. Lightmouse 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, then you will have to remove the "m" when you make non-trivial edits. The numbers of links are high, sometimes too high: but thats why you use your common sense and remove some of them, isn't it? It's allways a question what's too much, and what's just right. You seems to be doing fine, but of course, if you get to zealous, I'm sure people will start to let you know;-) I guess it's an idea to not become too eager! But again, it seems like you are doing good here. Greswik 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I see now that I can remove the 'm' at any time. Thanks for the praise, it feels good. Lightmouse 20:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop!

 * (Restored from User talk:Petri Krohn after deletion.)

You have been delinking dates in a number of articles. I do not see a concensus for this.

In your edit summary you claim the edits are minor fixes. Instead yo ushould say you hav "delinked dates". Even worse, you have marked the edits as minir (m), these edits are not minor and possibly destroy hours of work by other editors. Please stop! -- Petri Krohn 22:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will change the edit summary. I did not mark them as minor but then Greswik asked me to do that (see above). Links are used for context and there is no need to link plain english terms or partial dates. Full dates can be linked so that date preferences work. If you look at all the dates to Sunday and November and 2006, you will see that excessive links are a big problem on Wikipedia. Lightmouse 11:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Years should be linked, when they first appear in the text. -- Petri Krohn 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that you think that, many editors do. But it is a misunderstanding of the two reasons for 'links':
 * Full dates should be linked for preferences. That is the reason why Wikipedia treats dates in a special way.
 * Other links are there in case the reader needs to look them up to understand the article content. There is no requirement to link the first instance of bits of dates.
 * Hope that helps. Lightmouse 10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove critical comments from your talk page as you did here. I is considered an indication of bad faith. I still consider your edits unconstructive. As you are a new user, I am giving you a template warning: Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Blade Runner, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. -- Petri Krohn 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good faith editing is NOT vandalism - do not give out templates for vandalism for content disputes. --Fredrick day 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning
Your "minor fixes" are major damage. If you continue to remove content from articles, remove links to associated articles throughout text, and making incorrect formatting changes, then you will be blocked without further warning.

ChrischTalk 05:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Two of your complaints are:
 * Removal of content.
 * Incorrect formatting changes.
 * I am not aware of either of those. Please give examples. Lightmouse 11:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Akira Toriyama
Why did you perform this edit? If you fail to respond to this message in the next 2-3 days, I'll undo all of your edits to the page. Lord Sesshomaru


 * Links should be relevant to the context. Dates can be linked to support date preferences.
 * In that article, there are 55 solitary years. There were links to only 5 of them and they were arbitary.
 * 'Saturday' is a plain english word and linking it is silly.
 * I see that there is a date formatted as April 5th, 1955. The article defect there was not the link to the year, it was the presentation to the reader of '5 Aprilth' ,1955'.
 * If you don't understand what I mean by that last point, you may with to investigate further how date preferences work.
 * Regards Lightmouse 11:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is (was) written in chronological order, and years were linked when they first appeared; just as it should! -- Petri Krohn 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Where does it say years should be linked on first appearance? Lightmouse 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delinking dates
Greetings, I see you are delinking most dates on seemingly random articles. While some of them may be redundant, I wouldn't say that delinking all dates in an article is necessary. I've reverted a few as I saw you had been reported at a vandalism in progress noticeboard, but rather than go through all of that, I thought I'd drop a line to you instead as they seem to be a good faith attempt to help out. --Fire Star 火星 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The edits were not random. If you had looked at 'what links here' for solitary days and solitary months (such as Wednesday and November) articles, you will see an astonishing number of excessive links. There is no good reason for such links. The same applies to solitary years. Such partial dates are just like plain english terms. The edits were certainly not vandalism. By removing excessive links to 'plain english' terms, I am making the good links more visible. All done to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia for readers. Lightmouse 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, again, as you know I am of the ones who agree with you there tend to be many links just making the articles blue here. You just have to use your common sense to what is redundant. If someone thinks you take out to much, you will have to ask them for wich articles that is- however, with your speed, you may get many examples. And, of coruse, you will probably sometimes remove one that shouldn't go- just as everybody has an error percentage. Perhaps you should ask at the village pump for comments, or even Peer_review -allthough I have never tried out this precedures. Of course, as you have started to write the "minor fixes" in the M field, you should change the text of the edit summary to something more precise. I proposed "adjusting number of links to sane level", "delinking excess links" may be an alternative. Greswik 11:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Indeed, the 'error percentage' point is good and I have to say that I think that no real error has been demonstrated yet. I will change the edit summary. Look above at the 'Akira Toriyama' example. Lightmouse 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And, I am sure you have read Build the web, with it's useful links at the bottom. I don't think the other users get anything out of reporting you as a vandal- even if you become to eager. But, it's the common sense thing: It is difficult. Linking to someeones birth year, however, is typically a thing we do, I think. :-) Greswik 11:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I looked at Build the web and followed the links at the bottom. I could not find anything about linking a a birth year. I think 'typically a thing we do' applies to all these silly excessive links to partial dates. Lightmouse 12:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The term of art is overlinking. The guideline is: Only make links that are relevant to the context. --Jtir 14:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent reference. I see it contains the following:
 * On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
 * Low added-value items are linked without reason &mdash; such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century (this excludes special date formatting,
 * A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article
 * If an editor finds themselves "reflexively" linking a term without having a good look around the entire article, it is often time to stop and reconsider.
 * Thanks. Lightmouse 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * NP. As you are discovering, when doing a mass edit, a good edit summary is very important. I would suggest adding "per WP:CONTEXT".
 * BTW, one of the welcome headers on your talk page seems to be causing the wrong section to be selected for editing when I click on the "[edit]" link. --Jtir 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw a bot edit that consisted of nothing more than linking all mentions of years in the article... isnt that bot against guidelines?--Alexia Death 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which bot or edit? BTW, User:SmackBot does year delinking. --Jtir 13:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that unlink non-full dates/minor fixes would do the trick. I try to keep summaries as short as possible because repeated long ones can be irritating. I might consider adding 'per WP:CONTEXT' as you suggest, thanks.
 * I deleted the welcome message. I was encountering problems too but did not know why. Thanks for the explanation. Lightmouse 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Both would be even better. Citing a guideline provides a rationale for which there is some consensus. I gave you a new welcome message that doesn't seem to be as obtrusive. --Jtir 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Johnny Rodz
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Lightmouse! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
Hi - you may wish to check this --Fredrick day 13:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Question on dates
It appears you are consistently delinking years when they are linked in the cite templates so ...accessdaymonth=30 May | accessyear=2007... becomes ...accessdaymonth=30 May | accessyear=2007... which looks odd when displayed as we end up with "Retrieved on 30 May 2007". Is this because you are doing some automated checking for standalone years and this appears to be one? Or is there some strange MoS reason that I haven't heard about? I last noticed it a couple of days ago, so apologies if you've fixed it. Yomangani talk 17:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a mistake, sorry. I did see 'accessyear=2007 and thought that these were standalone. I will do something about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Lightmouse 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed now. It should not happen again. Lightmouse 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alpha Phi Omega members.
Your change note says (dates per WP:CONTEXT/other fixes). What were your other fixes? My compliments on your speed.Naraht 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not make any other fixes. I put that there because I sometimes do other things. The only way I can maintain the speed is to have a standard summary. Thanks for the compliment. Glad to have been of help. Regards. Lightmouse 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Delinking dates?! What manner is this?
Sir, if I may humbly ask, why perhaps are you programming thyself to remove the years of all articles in this encyclopedic forum? Have you not thought twice of it? DC&amp;Marvel maniac 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thy humility does thee credit sir. Twill undo the erroneous linkitude that was createth in false belief of duty. To do nought would offend the eye of the beholder yet ne'er aid the education. Lightmouse 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)