User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2009/April

scripts etc
Ta for the email about the situation; I'll use yr script accordingly. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Have you voted at the: Date formatting and linking poll?
 * Lightmouse

Your date-delinking script
Thanks for the note. I was aware of the injunction. — Malik Shabazz 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You script
Hi there,

Thanks for the warning i have seen the injunction about the script however my own feeling are a mixutre for both using it and not using it so i will not comment as i do not want ot be bias to either side. However unfortnally i have ot this date not been able to work out how to use yoru script correctly anyway :( it would have made one or two pages easie rto clean up than rather than manually do it.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew: It seems to be OK to delink occasionally; just be sure not to do anything that might be seen to be a systematic program of delinking. Cheers. Tony   (talk)  14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave the script a try within my own user pages and it says its working and then amends the page to say it delinked it but when i save it, it still has links--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I tested the script on User:Lightmouse/sandbox and it saves correctly for me. Try testing it on that. Lightmouse (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Element names in script.js
Greetings, Lightmouse. I was looking through User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js, and I have a small request. In your addOnloadHook function, you call addPortletLink many times, but you don't give unique and sensible ids to all the list elements. (The one to format all dates as dmy is called 't-dmy', but so is the one to delink common terms.) Could you give them each unique names? That will allow me to interact with them in my monobook.css. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never quite worked out what those element names are for. So I left them alone. If you can guarantee that they won't break the script, feel free to suggest some changes and I will implement them if your instructions are clear enough for me to understand. Lightmouse (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure! The element names don't change anything in how the script works; they merely allow your monobook.css to interact with them. For instance, if I liked the "Delink year-in-X dates" link and wanted it emphasized, and it were named t-yearinX, I could say this in my monobook.css:

...and that would make the link appear red to me. So I would recommend changing your addOnloadHook function to the following:

All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have updated the function. I hope it is exactly as you want and has no downside. Let me know if that works for you. Lightmouse (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's perfect, thanks! – Quadell (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing
You really should stop canvassing the users of your date delinking script to voice their opinions at the date formatting and linking poll. Canvassing is considered disruption. See votestacking. Tennis expert (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

please consider converting acres to hectares
instead of to km2 or m2 (as here ). Acres (US and International) are much closer to hectares than to either of the other area units. Thank you. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not the first time the subject has been raised: see, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightmouse&oldid=226816004 --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I've just received emails from a number of users which show you have been canvassing people who you know will oppose autoformatting via email. This not only goes against Canvassing, it seriously undermines the whole procedure. I've therefore blocked you for one week.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Several people said that I should inform users of the script about the injunction. It would be bizarre to inform them about the injunction but not about the RFC that would resolve it. Furthermore, it looks like you are using blocking as a first reaction, without warning, and as a punishment, all of which are wrong. You may wish to consider alternative means of interacting with me that might suit Wikipedia better. I look forward to your response. Lightmouse (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What would a warning have done? The damage has already been done at this point, and I'm making sure you can't disrupt the poll any further. People that used your script will obviously be opposing autoformatting so you are contacting only one side of the disupte. Doing this in the privacy of an email rather than on talk pages shows that you were attempting to circumnavigate WP:CANVASS and pull a fast one. I class any attempt at deliberately attempting to sway the results of the poll as a very serious matter, hence the block.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Several people said that script users should be informed about the injunction and that is what I did. It would be bizarre to tell somebody not to use the script while dispute resolution is in progress but not to tell them about the most significant survey of that dispute resolution. This is not a canvass issue.
 * You wrote: "What would a warning have done?". You didn't try to find out. This is not the wild west where admins shoot first and ask questions second.
 * You wrote: "I'm making sure you can't disrupt the poll any further". If that is your justification, then please align the block with the duration of the poll.
 * I hope that you apply the same logic to the emails, attempts at vote-reversal, and other contacts made by pro-linkers. In no other democratic process would ignorance of an RFC be regarded as a good thing. Sigh. Lightmouse (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems punitive to me, Ryan, since the poll will end today. I believe Lightmouse's points are compelling. Tony   (talk)  14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the issue was raised after Lightmouse had posted a prominent message at the head of his monobook script, I believe Lightmouse was only doing the responsible thing, in response to a reasonable request endorsed by an arbitrator. I would remind the cue for this came from Locke Cole several weeks ago, and reinforced by Vandenburg. It was finally worded into a motion on the workshop page by Cole about a week before the poll. Ryan evidently has copies of the alleged email(s), so it must be asked how it have been any different had it been by messages on users' talk pages?  Ohconfucius (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)
 * 2¢, maybe a bit more.
 * Warnings that amount to "Heard you are drumming up support for the poll on only one side, please stop." only work if an assumption is made that the issuer caught it very, very early. If the issuer finds out about it late, then a response to the unacceptable behavior is needed.
 * Since Lightmouse was told to have those using his script to cease and desist during the poll, it is very clear he would need to do that some how. And that he would either need to say why or point to the original request. Penalizing him for that is very, very unfair.
 * Since Lightmouse needed to contact those editors, it really should have been done on their talk pages (in plain sight) and amount to "Please stop using the scripts as per this request (link to a plain sight request to Lightmouse to get the scripts stopped)." This avoids the feel off-Wiki canvasing/meatpuppetry.
 * - J Greb (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken he was also pointing those he contacted to the RFC and suggesting participating there would resolve things. If Lightmouse really wanted to avoid having users of his script run afoul of the injunction he'd have simply blanked his script until the injunction was lifted. Sorry to ABF, but the evidence of his attempting to influence the results of this RFC via canvassing are too obvious to ignore. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "he'd have simply blanked his script until the injunction was lifted" you were silent when I asked for your suggestion, so why is it so obvious now? Ohconfucius (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is speculation... Only Ryan, Lightmouse, and the editors who were contacted know who and what list they belong to. Lightmouse's comment above suggests it was only to those who used the script. If Locke can prove otherwise, he should put up, otherwise, he should STFU. Reading Greb's comment above, I now see that perhaps Lightmouse was unwise to email the script users, but I am still concerned that the length of the block fit the alleged offense, relative to the gentle warning Sapphic received for her canvassing? If Lightmouse had already emailed all of the script users, there is no further damage to prevent, surely? Ohconfucius (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the block to the end of the poll. However, Lightmouse will be playing no further part in the poll, either on the main poll page or the talk page. He's disrupted the process and skewed the results - he's no longer welcome to participate. Any edit to the pages by him will be met with a swift revert and block.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ryan. I believe I was doing what was expected. I wonder whether you will consider asking Locke Cole, Sapphic, CKatz, and Arthur Ruben whether they have contacted people off-wiki (e.g. email, IRC) before or after the person has voted? Lightmouse (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to project your misbehavior on other editors. I've contacted NO ONE during this RFC via e-mail about this RFC. I've received e-mails from editors during my week+ long absence, but I did not respond. Also, if I were to contact someone AFTER they've made their opinion (as Sapphic was doing), it would be entirely appropriate. Ryan was wrong to consider that canvassing (canvassing is contacting people unaware of a discussion or a dispute; contacting them after the fact to discuss the matter further should never be a problem on Wikipedia, we encourage, not discourage, discussion). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You may state Ryan was wrong to consider Sapphic's canvassing for being exactly what it was, and I would say kudos to your redefining of the word by saying night is day. Your gloss is rather brazen and shiny consider your supporter has been caught out for attempting to swing people who have voted against DA. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Sapphic was doing, nothing at all. A request for comment is a discussion, and additional discussion is not harmful. I've also not redefined anything. If you'd bother reading WP:CANVASS, you'd note the very first sentence immediately excludes what Sapphic was doing: Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion (emphasis mine). The editors Sapphic contacted were already aware of the discussion. On the other hand, Lightmouse and Tony have been soliciting editors who may not have been aware of the RFC in order to influence the results, this is disruption per WP:CANVASS. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, may god bless you for accusing me of not having read WP:CANVAS. It was only after having reading it that I lodged my complaint against Sapphic. "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent." (bold type my emphasis) Notwithstanding the voters' awareness of the poll, all the people contacted by her were on the 'oppose' side, and although some of the posts started off being neutral, others were not - some of the follow-ups were not neutral and could be considered 'badgering' those contacted to change their vote. As to there being "absolutely nothing wrong with what Sapphic was doing": nothing at all wrong my foot. Ohconfucius (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG, when will you GET IT? What Sapphic did FAILS ON THE FIRST SENTENCE. The sentences that follow are irrelevant because she was contacting people only after they'd expressed an opinion. WP:CANVASS does NOT apply to what Sapphic did. End of story. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I wasn't aware that a user was unable to change his/her vote after it had been cast. Plastikspork (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They're perfectly able, but that's irrelevant. In a discussion you expect people to be open to considering other peoples arguments, and hence, for people to potentially change their mind. That's not what Locke Cole • t • c 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG, when will you get it? It doesn't matter which sentence (first or last) of WP:CANVAS is failed by what Sapphic did. She was campaigning, end of story. Ohconfucius (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it does matter. As it fails the first, the remainder are irrelevant. However, campaigning (not to be confused with canvassing) might be a reasonable description of what she was doing, but even then, it's discussion. The person who has already !voted is still free to either a) let their !vote stand or b) reconsider and change their !vote. That's the entire point of discussion, to discuss the matter and convince others your point of view is correct (or reach some other compromise). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you guys stop yelling at each other and take this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing where you might get a wider opinion? Personally, I don't see how engaging in discussion editors who ahve already participated of an RFC, AfD or whatever could be considered canvassing.  I know that I've done somethign similar at AfD where, after editing an article to address the concerns of an editor who argued for deletion, asked them to reconsider their opinion based on the new information.  That's not at all what WP:CANVAS was intended to stop.  Regardless, I'm just one editor, and as I said, this is not the ideal forum for this discussion.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ryan has opened a request for off-wiki canvassing. I presume that he means canvassing from any party. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to my comment above, as can be seen from all 3 polls/RfCs, these who oppose date-linking form a sizeable majority, whereas those opposing autoformatting for a smaller majority in percentage terms. Even Earle Martin, who objected so rather violently (if I may say so) to my actions, voted to oppose DA, so would it be by any means obvious that script users will oppose date-autoformatting? Ohconfucius (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

SARS reference
I wonder if you have a reference to your statement about team rotation during the SARS outbreak, found in the BCP article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camitz (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Please provide a link to where I said something about it. Lightmouse (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Siberia
There is a discussion about the types of errors which your monobook script and Lightbot would be capable of correcting. Tcncv has listed here some of the possible formatting anomalities. I have mentioned the types of cases I have dealt with using your script, but clarification from you would be helpful, particularly about what Lightbot could potentially do. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking injunction
Has the injunction been lifted yet to begin delinking dates again?--Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Greg L (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Selective Enable/Rename
Now for a follow-up question/suggestion. Have you considered making it possible to selectively add and rename the buttons in the toolbox? I just tried this with my script and it appears to be fairly straightforward. Basically, you can create a structure with the names for all the buttons, and if any button has a null string for its name, then it isn't added. For the structure of names, I basically followed the model used for TwinkleConfig by Twinkle. You can take a look here and here if you are interested (search for SporkConfig). This would allow you to possible add more buttons, but have them off by default, or allow people to turn of specific buttons. If you aren't interested, it's no big deal as I can probably write my own for your script. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: selective renaming. It sounds like an interesting feature. I am fairly busy right now but I will take a look and see if I can copy working code from you. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to try it out (note I have not debugged it for your script, but it should work modulo typos), first past this at the top of your script:

Next change your addOnloadHook function to

If someone wants to change the name of one of the links, he/she can paste the first code chunk into his/her monobook.js. If someone wants to turn off a button he/she can define the name to an empty string. The other option would be to split the script into subscripts, but there might be some problems with dependencies. This sort of configuration structure is also used by Twinkle, Friendly, ... for setting options, although not for turning on/off buttons as far as I can tell (although they have that option also). Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I am sure a choice of buttons would be a welcome enhancement. I am too busy right to implement and test it now but if this disappears off the page, I will pull it out of the archive when I have time. Lightmouse (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How about a “Big DUH!” question:
OK, I tired of wandering around on Talk:Poll like a blind man in a dark cave trying to figure out our options with bots and DynamicDates. Here’s some Big DUH!” questions for you:


 * 1) When your bot goes to pages to de-link dates, can your bot look for plain-text dates on those pages?
 * 2) If yes, can it look for whether ## April is more common than April ##?
 * 3) Can it look at the DD-MM/MM-DD order in the code syntax of linked dates on the pages and find out which one is most common?
 * 4) If yes, don’t you think that is sufficient information to use in making an educated guess as to which format to use when converting a linked (and autformatted) date to plain-text?
 * 5) Would you prefer/propose to make just a single pass through Wikipedia, where you 1) de-link dates and 2) correct dates (those that should remain linked) at the same time(?) so that the remaining dates can look correct when DynamicDates is turned off?

Please keep your answers here. Greg L (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution
Greg, thanks for your questions. However, I think all that is required at this stage is a bot run to remove the square brackets around full dates only (any date that contains the three elements, day, month, year, in whatever sequence or format). This task would take days or weeks rather than months. Date fragments (linked years and linked day-months) would be left untouched. The bot would:
 * insert a space where it is missing from the raw text
 * insert a comma where it is missing from the raw text in mdy format

Before this task could be started, the temporary injuction would need to be lifted, and bot permission would need to be granted. Lightmouse (talk)


 * Fine then. This is where you want to start. I believe that means DynamicDates needs to remain on for the moment since turning it off would scramble hundreds, if not thousands, of remaining dates (Tcncv's table). Is that how you see it? Greg L (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would like DynamicDates to be switched off but not yet. Lightmouse (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes perfect sense to me. I am absolutely convinced that this, more conservative, stepped approach will be least disruptive to our I.P. users. 00:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * hello Lightmouse - hope you're doing well! would the bot also be able to change (linked) ISO dates to dmy/mdy in this first run? Sssoul (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The design concept is simply to remove square brackets. If you are a user without a preference setting, then you will see a change from blue to black. It will not change the format. If you want format changes, you may be better off using a monobook script with a human to check if the format change is correct. Lightmouse (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for the clarity - one more question: will things like 1983-12-18 count as "full dates" that Lightbot will remove the links from on that first run? Sssoul (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The definition of 'full date' is partly based on 'will autoformat'. Lightmouse (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your logic, Lightmouse. A syntax like   looks like 19831218 right now for 99.97% of our readership (I.P. users). After your first pass with Lightbot, they will look like 1983-12-18. No harm – no foul for I.P. users. The only difference is the link to irrelevant, non-germane trivia will be gone. Greg L (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

When is the injunction going to be lifted so that we can all start work? Lightmouse (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be making posts soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Lightmouse. I was just coming to see if you would get your bot ready to do this - I see you're one step ahead.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting and linking poll
Please feel free to weigh into any discussion from the poll - you're no longer restricted from editing it as I believe enough time has passed since the canvassing issues.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Lightmouse. Full-fledged rights. “Service guarantees citizenship”. And we all certainly know that what you do for Wikipedia with your bots is a big service to Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Date ranges
"The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes."

- MOSDATE

Is this something you would be interesting in adding to your script? Plastikspork (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is technically possible but I suspect it would be quicker with AWB. If you get yourself an AWB account, I can write the script for you. Lightmouse (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I use Linux and it appears AWB only works with Windows. This was mainly a suggestion as I have my own script that I use in conjunction with your script (in fact I used yours as a template for writing mine) and before I put in something date related, I thought I would check to see if you were interested in putting it in your script instead. Although, it's not clear that anyone else other than me would want to automate this particular edit. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My widely used script has to be more conservative than an script that is used by its author only. So I would prefer not to include it. The suggestion is very welcome though. If you like, I could try an AWB run on your behalf and/or to write the code for you to embed in your script. Lightmouse (talk)


 * Understood. Writing the script is not the problem, it's more an issue of not copying some existing or planned functionality. Plastikspork (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: 'since 1996'. If you want to add the 'since 1996' function, go right ahead. It won't be in my script so you aren't duplicating anything. Lightmouse (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the wishlist. I seems to have found a date-range related issue with the monobook script. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * LM, I'd salivate at the opportunity to correct wrong date ranges. Would you like some draft specs for the script? Or do I take it from above that you'd rather keep it to the bot only? Tony   (talk)  06:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have a list of specs, I would be happy to help write the script. I know LM is probably pretty busy right now.Plastikspork (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am very busy. My wishlist is on my watchlist and I saw the posting that Ohconfucius made there but was too busy to respond. Your (Plastikspork) offer is very welcome and I recommend that Tony and Ohconfucius take it up. Date ranges have many permutations that make the code convoluted. My date range code at User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js only addresses a fraction of the problems but feel free to recycle any code that you want. Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot
Hello Lightmouse. Is your bot ready to start working through this list and removing only the dates that are problematic when dynamic dates is turned off? I know approval is needed, but is the programming side ready?  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. The code is ready. Lightmouse (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What is this bot? Where's it located, what's it do, what was the big discussion recently?  I tried doing a Google search for Wikipedia Lightmouse bot, looked around on Lightmouse's user page and talk page, tried Special:AllPages/Lightmouse, but can't find something that spells it out. Banaticus (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would imagine it would be User:Lightbot. Plastikspork (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking
Sorry to bother you again but I was wondering if they had lifted the injunction about date delinking yet?--Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The arbs are considering the proposed decision for the case now, and there should be more guidance after they vote. Karanacs (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)