User talk:Lightmouse

Notice

Hi there Lightmouse!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois

Hello, Lightmouse. You have new messages at Flash176's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A template

	Hi! I noticed your contributions and thought you would be a great addition to the California State University task force over at WikiProject California. Please consider this your personal invitation to join; if you're interested, you can signup here! We currently have 1184 articles under our task force and would appreciate any assistance, large or small, with getting them to good article status. (We've got 18 there so far!) Whether you decide to join or not, thank you for everything you've already done to make Wikipedia better, and oh yeah...GO STATE!
~~~~

Linkage Problems

It appears that AWB is removing the [[2008 in radio|2008]] links as if they were regular [[2008]] links, as with this edit to the WNNT-FM page. I am not sure if you can alter the way AWB picks the dates or not, but just something to look out for. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 21, 2008 @ 16:27

Hi, it would be better if such a link were not concealed. It is a shame that readers don't know that it is not just another solitary year to be ignored. Many projects (and perhaps even the Wikipedia Manual of Style) are actually recommending that concealed links should not be used. Rather than concealing the link, can you make it look less like a solitary year so that it won't be ignored? Lightmouse (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are meaning, but the problem for me anyway, is that 2008 in radio looks goofy by itself. Having it as a WikiLink works, but not for MOS standards. I am unsure what to do. The best idea is to mark them all 2008 in radio.....but I am unsure on that one. What are your thoughts? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 21, 2008 @ 16:55

I don't think it looks goofy. As long as it contains a non-date word, it will be obvious to the reader that it is not a solitary year. You could try:

[[2008 in radio]]
[[2008 in radio|radio events in 2008]]
[[2008 in radio|see 2008 in radio]]

or anything you want. Personally, I would make it 'what you see is what you get' (wysiwyg) and use [[2008 in radio]]. It is up to you. Good luck! Lightmouse (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking maybe going with something like this...

[[2008 in radio|2008 (in Radio)]]

....to me, it looks "not weird" :) and wouldn't look like non-solitary year link. Before I go nuts and start updating pages, I have put this before WP:WPRS for their input as well (kinda standard procedure with radio station articles), I will let you know what the outcome of the discussion is. Thanks for your input, I appericate it. :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 21, 2008 @ 21:18

Pardon me for jumping in, but I'm responding to the discussion that NeutralHomer started at WP:WPRS. Lightmouse, the link that you removed in the diff shown above, as well as [1] at the WTEM article, satisfy an infobox line for "First air date", so the most logical thing to appear there is a year. Fortunately, there are articles that can be linked from that year that provide context and add value for a reader. While it's unfortunate that the resulting links aren't completely intuitive, piped links are not uncommon in the least, as I'm sure you're aware. I know that both you and your bot account have been working on delinking bare dates since they were deprecated at MOS. While I don't necessarily agree that deprecate = pro-actively remove, I have a lot of respect for the enormous amount of hard work and effort that you've put into this, and I think that the degree of flack you've taken over this is unfortunate. However, this isn't the same as the bare dates, and there really isn't a reason in this situation to remove them. We'll brainstorm other ways to reflect the link that are more intuitive, but if you could be careful not to remove similar links as you continue your project, it would be greatly appreciated. Mlaffs (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CleanBot

Hey, If there are any specifics with AWB in relation to this bot, give me a shout, and i'll try and help out. That plugin could do unlimited or up to 100k pages, etc.

The redirect problem you've found can at least be ignored.

However, a better workaround for this, would be

* list=allpages (ap) *
  Enumerate all pages sequentially in a given namespace
Parameters:
  apfrom         - The page title to start enumerating from.
  apprefix       - Search for all page titles that begin with this value.
  apnamespace    - The namespace to enumerate.
                   One value: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 100, 101
                   Default: 0
  apfilterredir  - Which pages to list.
                   One value: all, redirects, nonredirects
                   Default: all
  apminsize      - Limit to pages with at least this many bytes
  apmaxsize      - Limit to pages with at most this many bytes
  apprtype       - Limit to protected pages only
                   Values (separate with '|'): edit, move
  apprlevel      - The protection level (must be used with apprtype= parameter)
                   Can be empty, or Values (separate with '|'): autoconfirmed, sysop
  aplimit        - How many total pages to return.
                   No more than 500 (5000 for bots) allowed.
                   Default: 10
  apdir          - The direction in which to list
                   One value: ascending, descending
                   Default: ascending
  apfilterlanglinks - Filter based on whether a page has langlinks
                   One value: withlanglinks, withoutlanglinks, all
                   Default: all

And not even load the "redirects" by setting apfilterredir=nonredirects

I could write you a custom all page provider for this, would not be very much work at all.

Oh, and create the bot a userpage ;)

—Ree dy 22:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB misuse

Hi, for the time being I have revoked your access to AWB. The reason for this move is that a number of extremely minor, inconsequential edits have originated from your account through the tool. This sort of change, which isn't really important in the grander scheme of the article, is best added to the "general fixes" part of AWB so that the "problem" can be fixed when more effectual bot tasks are run. Please file a bug against AWB to have the fix added to the general fixes. Thanks, Martinp23 15:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a trifle harsh. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If he's not going to make that sort of edit again, he's welcome to request the access back either via me or the usual process. Martinp23 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The harshness is partly in the fact that your move is unannounced and left no lattitude for prior communication about it. I do not approve of this method of administrative action. As well, it's vague and unexplained: what kind of trivial, "ineffectual" tasks are you referring to? Tony (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately things are quite reversable here when the issues are resolved. I took this action not so much as an admin (though it required access to admin tools) as a once AWB dev. If you're attempting to suggest that you don't know why I removed the access, you'd be well advised to take a look at the recent contributions of Lightmouse, which illustrate it quite cleanly. Thanks, Martinp23 16:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Lightmouse's recent contributions and I could not find what you meant. Lightmouse has been essentially running a version of his date unlinking script through AWB. This seems to fit current policy, and I cannot see why this is "ineffectual." NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have my access revoked as well, I'm doing pretty much the same thing as Lightmouse. No point being inconsistent. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The numerous spectators to this thread will probably find this interesting. Martinp23 12:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the delinking of dates, per our Manual of Style, "inconsequential"? Tony (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because minor edits such as this should be done while doing significant edits (i.e. typo fixing), rather than just racking up a huge edit count making inconsequential changes. –xeno (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should be banned as an undesirable. Tony (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I believe that the proper process involves the setting out of exactly what is at issue, rather than generic assertions without even exemplification. Tony (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Martinp23: I saw that you also revoked access to AClosedmouth's AWB. You cited rules 4 and 5. These rules are "Avoid making insignificant minor edits" and "Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices." I'm not sure I agree with you that the former applies, and I would certainly disagree about the latter. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to argue the point, feel free to use my talk page or (better) email. Martinp23 23:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved (already); see my talk page if anyone is actually interested. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are again

How cunning of you. I've removed you again, for the same reason, and have added you to the banned users list for AWB. Martinp23 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What do you mean 'cunning'? Lightmouse (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I think you are using your tools for the wrong reasons. You need to explain the reason you have banned Lightmouse from using AWB or I will be forced to report you to AN for misuse of your admin tools. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:17

Lightmouse got his AWB access removed for making a lot of minor edits, including some mistakes, as you can see on this talk page. Afterwards, instead of saying he wouldn't do it anymore or discussing it or something, he goes back to the access page and requesting it again, without mentioning the fact it had been taken away before, and then makes the same sort of edits. I don't think this comes under "misuse of admin tools". Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the way Martin is going about it does (to me anyway). If Lightmouse is making good edits, even if they are minor, I don't see the problem. Isn't that what AWB is used for? Making quick work of lots of minor edits? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 16:29

He has been removed for exactly the same reasons as above, and the same reason that Closedmouth and Nuclearwarfare were removed. You can look at the reasons on their talk pages too if you like. I am abusing no tools - were I not an AWB dev, I wouldn't be removing him. That position affords me a degree of discretion, and I have explained and justified my reasons fully. You might like to familiarise yourself with the AWB rules too. Martinp23 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2300 AD and 2000 AD

Take care because 2300 AD is a game and not a date. 2000 AD is a disamb page -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but can you give me an example edit where it has been a problem? Lightmouse (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't make a mistake. I am right now using a module and I notice that an automatic change is impossible because of that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am confused. Either:

there is a problem with code and I need to take action to fix it

or

there is no problem with code and I can do nothing

I assume the former because of your first comment. However your last comment sounds like the latter. Please can you let me know which one it is? Lightmouse (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with code. It unlinks 2300 AD and 2000 AD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting me know. If you are aware of any others, just tell me. Refresh your cache and test it. If you don't notice a change, it will probably be because the Wikipedia mirrors have not synchronised yet and you will need to wait an hour or so. Let me know how you get on. Lightmouse (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, I've noticed you've been contributing to articles similar to mine, i.e. related to activist/anarchist people. My article on Bruno Masse is threatened of deletion, could you please vote to keep it? You can vote [| here]. In solidarity! Lkeryl (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest living United States Senator

You missed some dates.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Barbarossa-class ocean liner

In this edit to Barbarossa-class ocean liner you improperly changed the sortkey for a category. Because this is the main article for Category:Barbarossa class ocean liners, the pipe and space ("| ") were added to allow this article to list at the top of the category page. This is a common technique for 'lead' articles of categories. Please ensure that whatever tools you are using do not destroy this type of commonly used and intentional sortkey. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Advice_about_categories_please. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries and category changes

Please use accurate edit summaries, especially when making script-assisted edits. This edit summary is distinctly misleading and the edit wasn't helpful; the pipe and space is a commonly used tool to make the article lead item in a category. Please exercise more caution when making edits. Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category change is the same behavior mentioned in the post above this. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Advice_about_categories_please. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbot

The lightbot is auto-deleting carriage returns it deems superfluous, but many pages deliberately have extra carriage returns so that they display properly. I can't help thinking that maybe you should disable that particular function. Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a general fix in AWB. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Any chance of an example edit? Lightmouse (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should cut down on the automation a bit?

have you considered cutting down on the semi-automated editing a bit? judging from the above, your false positive ratio seems awful high (in addition to shaky consensus for the date-based edits). –xeno (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link removal

No quarrel with removing links to years, etc., as links like 2005 are against the MOS, but in this edit, you accidentally removed a link to [[2005 in basketball|2005]]. Something's wrong: if you meant to make this edit, the next line of the table has a link to [[2003 in baseball|2003]] which wasn't removed. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. You are right to say that they are either both right or both wrong. I will investigate. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]