User talk:Lightmouse

Lightbot caused Useless Edits

Made useless edits on 9885 Linux. Removed necessary stub and Metre link. Lantay77 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It correctly removed the link to metre in accordance with wp:overlink that says:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).

It didn't remove a stub. Which stub do you think it removed? Lightmouse (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stub tag was removed by the preceding edit. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying the Lightbot removed a tag, if so, which one? Lightmouse (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, one of the two stub tags was removed by another editor in the preceding edit. I don't understand the complaint - it's not a huge deal, because one tag was a subset of the other. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop Lightbot until it's repaired

Discussion moved to wt:mosnum.

Converting organ stop lengths

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_PipeOrgan#Use_of_.27foot.27_in_organ_pipes

Problems with naval articles

Your bot is making a mess of naval articles. I'll give a few examples from the first three I checked, USS Grunion (SS-216), USS Herring (SS-233), and USS Silversides (SS-236).

1. Removing lk=on from convert templates on first use of a unit. Not a big deal, but why?

2. Removing convert templates for no apparent reason.

3. Converting gun bore measurements. This is, or can be, wrong, because guns are often named by a bore and caliber that are not exactly what you'd find if you measured the bore. It's kind of like a nickname. It often happens when the bore is changed slightly for a new projectile but the gun retains the old name for convenience. In this particular case, the Japanese three inch naval gun is a 76.2 mm, not a 76 mm. I know it sounds like a minor rounding error but that's the actual name of the gun, not just a measurement.

4. Sometimes a "yard" is a spar that carries a sail, not a unit of measurement. Appending "(3 m)" to "mast no. 4 was also fitted with three yards" is incorrect and silly. This is the second time in two days we've had to revert this.

I'll undo the ones I know of, but I can't check them all. Rees11 (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, I am finding issues with this recent series of edits to ship articles as well (in fact, other issues than those mentioned above). Will post a more thorough explanation shortly, after I've reviewed a bigger sample. Appreciate if you would hold off on these types of edits in the meantime. Maralia (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after going through thousands of edits:

1. Changing conversion templates to plaintext: I have no issue with this in general, but you should always use nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units of measure. This edit and this one introduced MOS errors into FAs by not using nonbreaking spaces.
2. Adjectival errors: This edit improperly changed an adj=on conversion template to a plaintext non-adjectival version.This edit wrongly changed a plaintext adjectival construct (13-knot convoy) to a plaintext non-adjectival one (13 knot (24 km/h) convoy). This edit and this one improperly changed a sing=on to adj=on.
3. Randomness: This edit broke a conversion template by inexplicably changing 'knots' to 'kns'.
4. Context problems:

1. This edit adds conversion via template where plain text conversion already existed (and is now duplicated). This edit did the same thing, as did this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one.
2. This edit added a convert template inside a quotation, as did this one and this one.

All of the listed edits have errors that need correction. I only went as far back as this edit (20:44, 23 December 2008), so there are conceivably more errors. I have to say I'm particularly baffled at the changes from conversion templates to plaintext without nonbreaking spaces; why ignore half the functionality of the template? Maralia (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys. I will try my best to respond to them.
1. There is massive overlinking of common units of measurement on Wikipedia. If you look at wp:overlink you will see that it says that these should generally not be linked:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).
  

2. The removal of the convert template was due to a previous conversation with another editor. It is not something I wanted to do. I will investigate whether this is still necessary. My preference is to eliminate this function i.e. stop removal of the template.
3. Converting gun bore measurements. I have come across this issue before but I think the universal default conversion is '1 inch=25.4 mm' and then amendments are made where required (such as the Japanese gun you mention). I would be happy to see a discussion.
4. A mast can indeed be called a yard. Thanks for spotting that and correcting it. I had not thought of that false positive but I will investigate further. Thanks.
5. I have to admit that I don't give much thought to nbsp. I know that it seems important to some others. In some cases, I think nbsp is excessive or unnecessary. The examples of 'USS Siboney' and 'USS Bridgeport' are two excellent cases where the presence of nbsp in the conversion makes no difference. However, as I said in response (2), the removal of the template is under review.
6. As far as I can see, the only difference is a little short line (a hyphen or a dash). There are many editors that use a little short line in such cases and there are many that don't. There is no ambiguity in either case. For better or worse, the Wikipedia style is to add these little lines and I should be able to code for that by looking for 'adj'. However, as I said in response (2), the removal of the template is under review.
7. Replacement of 'sing=on' for 'adj=on'. I have been told that these two parameters are identical (present the unit in singular form plus a little short line). Personally, I would like a 'sing=on' parameter that does what it says (presents the reader with a unit that looks like the singular form without a little short line) but I have lost that argument. In the meantime, the general view is that 'adj' better than 'sing' and some people have suggested a bot should replace all instances of 'sing' with 'adj'. I hope that helps.
8. Randomness. The change of knots to kns is wrong. I will find out what happened and fix it. Thanks.
9. Duplication of conversion. Yes, duplication is a class of false positive that is difficult to eliminate entirely. But the examples you quote are helpul for possible tracing of false positives already made and improvement of future coding. Thanks.
10. Conversions inside quotes. This is another class of false positives that is difficult to eliminate. If most articles are converted, this will become less of an issue because the reduced workload for conversion will be achievable by manual methods. Some quotes contains a conversion in square brackets, and in those cases the false positive doesn't occur.
All useful feedback for tracing some of those issues and improving future coding. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I feel confident that I am "another editor" on which you are pinning your actions on in item 2, I will explain to you once again with the sincere hope that you will read, re-read (if necessary), and understand this time, Lightmouse.

1. I have never objected to the use of Template:Convert for displaying conversions of knots, mph, and km/h. Please reread that with the emphasis on the word never, as in never objected, period. Going further, I have asked you on more than one occasion in the past to specifically not perform this action since it allows subtle errors and/or undetected vandalism to creep into articles.
   • To be more succinct:
     • {{convert|15|knot}} →
     • Replacing {{convert|15|knot}} with the text "15 knots (28 km/h, 17 mph)" →
2. What I, and others, have had issue with you in the past is within uses of Template:Convert, your removal/replacement of the parameters "knot" and substituting the less-standard, less-intuitive, and more-obscure abbreviation of "kn". Because Template:Convert/knot redirects to Template:Convert/kn, use of the parameter "knot" presents no difference in appearance, load time, or accuracy in the article for the readers (those for whom we write this encyclopedia).
   • Examples:
     • {{convert|15|knot}} produces 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)
     • {{convert|15|kn}} produces 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)
   • Note that there is no difference in the output generated by either of these. But, the former example is explicitly clear to editors what unit is being converted by avoiding the non-standard abbreviation of "kn" (see this discussion).

I hope that you will carefully read and understand my comments. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A "yard" is not a mast, it is a spar. If you are going to edit the text, you need to know the difference.

For gun bores, the problem is knowing when the amendments are necessary. The Japanese naval gun is a good example. It's often called a "three inch" because it was copied from a British design by that name. When the Japanese metrified they renamed the gun to "Type 41 8cm." The only way to know that is to do some research, something a bot can't do. The only thing a bot can do in this case is leave the text alone. It would not be acceptable to add a conversion and hope a human editor later notices the mistake.

Are you planning to go back and review all the edits? I can't, there are too many. Is there any way you can modify the bot so human review takes place before the changes are committed? Rees11 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your bot is changing the formatting of conversions that are already there, e.g. from
|Ship range= 4,940 nautical miles at 12 knots <br/> &nbsp; (9,200 km at 22 km/h) to
|Ship range= 4,940 nautical miles (9,150 km) at 12 knots (22 km/h).[1] The former arrangement is superior, IMHO, because it puts the combination of distance & speed on one line, for both metric and non-metric units.

Range	4,940 nautical miles at 12 knots   (9,200 km at 22 km/h)
Range	4,940 nautical miles (9,150 km) at 12 knots (22 km/h)

Compare:
—WWoods (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The former is also better because it groups range/speed together for each measurement system.

Please stop this bot until all these problems are fixed. Rees11 (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is designed to add conversions where no conversion exists. The most popular conversion format is 'xx miles (yy km)' where the conversion is adjacent *and* in parentheses. Lightbot is very efficient at avoiding that popular conversion format because it is easy to detect one space and one parenthesis character. It is not so efficient at avoiding the infinite variety of conversions where the converted value appears many characters away. In fact, unpredictable conversion formats are, by definition, impossible to avoid. You gave an example of USS Paul G. Baker (DE-642) and you will see that Lightbot added a conversion to the 'nautical mile' value even though a conversion already existed many characters away. Thus the article ended up with a duplicate conversion. I noticed that it had done so and reprogrammed Lightbot to go back and eliminate one of the duplicate conversions. It seemed to me that the adjacent conversion using the template was preferable and I simply chose to stick with that one. It was not a deliberate targetting of such formats. However, now that we are sharing opinions on conversion formats, I happen to like the format used by the template whereby each source unit is adjacent to its converted unit. Lightmouse (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As of links

Hi. I have made a bot request to convert the remaining 'as of' links and I learned Lightbot had done this kind of things. Would you be interested to continue this work ? Especially in oder to orphan month links (some are in templates), so we can finally delete them. Then the year links, and see what to do of them at RFD. Thanks, Cenarium (Talk) 14:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to continue with this. Please give me the 'before' and 'after' raw text. Lightmouse (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Below are the most frequent cases, others are probably rare and can be revisited later or done manually.

list

[[As of March 2007]] → {{As of|2007|03}}

[[as of March 2007]] → {{As of|2007|03|lc=on}}

[[As of April 2007]] → {{As of|2007|04}}

[[as of April 2007]] → {{As of|2007|04|lc=on}}

[[As of May 2007]] → {{As of|2007|05}}

[[as of May 2007]] → {{As of|2007|05|lc=on}}

[[As of June 2007]] → {{As of|2007|06}}

[[as of June 2007]] → {{As of|2007|06|lc=on}}

[[As of July 2007]] → {{As of|2007|07}}

[[as of July 2007]] → {{As of|2007|07|lc=on}}

[[As of August 2007]] → {{As of|2007|08}}

[[as of August 2007]] → {{As of|2007|08|lc=on}}

[[As of September 2007]] → {{As of|2007|09}}

[[as of September 2007]] → {{As of|2007|09|lc=on}}

[[As of October 2007]] → {{As of|2007|10}}

[[as of October 2007]] → {{As of|2007|10|lc=on}}

[[As of November 2007]] → {{As of|2007|11}}

[[as of November 2007]] → {{As of|2007|11|lc=on}}

[[As of December 2007]] → {{As of|2007|12}}

[[as of December 2007]] → {{As of|2007|12|lc=on}}

[[As of January 2008]] → {{As of|2008|01}}

[[as of January 2008]] → {{As of|2008|01|lc=on}}

[[As of February 2008]] → {{As of|2008|02}}

[[as of February 2008]] → {{As of|2008|02|lc=on}}

[[As of March 2008]] → {{As of|2008|03}}

[[as of March 2008]] → {{As of|2008|03|lc=on}}

[[As of April 2008]] → {{As of|2008|04}}

[[as of April 2008]] → {{As of|2008|04|lc=on}}

[[As of May 2008]] → {{As of|2008|05}}

[[as of May 2008]] → {{As of|2008|05|lc=on}}

[[As of June 2008]] → {{As of|2008|06}}

[[as of June 2008]] → {{As of|2008|06|lc=on}}

[[As of July 2008]] → {{As of|2008|07}}

[[as of July 2008]] → {{As of|2008|07|lc=on}}

[[As of 1998]] → {{As of|1998}}

[[as of 1998]] → {{As of|1998|lc=on}}

[[As of 1999]] → {{As of|1999}}

[[as of 1999]] → {{As of|1999|lc=on}}

[[As of 2000]] → {{As of|2000}}

[[as of 2000]] → {{As of|2000|lc=on}}

[[As of 2001]] → {{As of|2001}}

[[as of 2001]] → {{As of|2001|lc=on}}

[[As of 2002]] → {{As of|2002}}

[[as of 2002]] → {{As of|2002|lc=on}}

[[As of 2003]] → {{As of|2003}}

[[as of 2003]] → {{As of|2003|lc=on}}

[[As of 2004]] → {{As of|2004}}

[[as of 2004]] → {{As of|2004|lc=on}}

[[As of 2005]] → {{As of|2005}}

[[as of 2005]] → {{As of|2005|lc=on}}

[[As of 2006]] → {{As of|2006}}

[[as of 2006]] → {{As of|2006|lc=on}}

[[As of 2007]] → {{As of|2007}}

[[as of 2007]] → {{As of|2007|lc=on}}

[[As of 2008]] → {{As of|2008}}

[[as of 2008]] → {{As of|2008|lc=on}}

Cenarium (Talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Leave it with me for a few days. Lightmouse (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lightmouse (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Missed one...

See the edit history of When It Rains.... Both you and your script that I use wouldn't get the "December 27th" in this article. I had to manually take out those brackets. Don't know what was going on here... Dismas|^(talk) 04:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The link contained a double space between 'December' and '27th'. I could add code to fix such errors but it is so rare that I would rather not handle it myself. It is a generic error that is ideal for AWB 'General fixes'. See the request for it to be added to AWB. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 13:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actinoleuca campbelli macquariensis millimetre

Why are you removing the millimetre link with this bot? GrahamBould (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The guidance at wp:overlink says not to link:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).

I hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that whole section is prefaced "generally not necessary to link" which is not the same as "not to link" and certainly no cause for the bot to sweep through thousands of articles blindly removing a possibly useful link from an infobox. - Dravecky (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it does say 'generally'. However, I think that Actinoleuca campbelli macquariensis is a good case where the guidance applies. If you would like other opinions, perhaps we should ask what people at wt:mosnum think. If you post there, I will see it. Lightmouse (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dravecky, please provide instances of where it is useful to link millimetre, and we'll take it from there. Tony (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot problem

How can I stop User:Lightbot from doing this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Reporting it here is the right thing. I will investigate further. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot minor interwiki issue

See [2], where Lightbot changes from one incorrect ordering to another. That isn't a big issue - it was already wrong previously, and now it's manually fixed. However, it is at least suboptimal behavior. Any idea what's causing it? It could be the three letter prefix, but I can't figure how Lightbot picked that particular order as correct. Anyhow, as I said, it's a minor issue on its own, but you might want to look into it. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is not designed to change the order. That is a feature of AWB 'General fixes' which Lightbot just happens to have set to 'on'. I don't know much about it but look at the AWB faq for 'What interwiki link order does AWB use?'. If that doesn't answer your question, just post at that page and somebody should answer you. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for responding. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot keeps removing links to Meter

Like this. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The guidance at wp:overlink says not to link:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).

I hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It also removed the link to the letter M in the article latin alphabet. Since there are a lot of articles linking to the letter M, a check should be added if the [[m]] is preceded by a number. The same risk exists for the many other single-letter units. −Woodstone (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will investigate further. Lightmouse (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A related problem happened to article [[Ft]], where in section "See also", [[FT]] was unlinked. Again a case that can be solved by checking presence of a preceding number. The list of 26 letters mentioned below by another complaining user is of course the same as above latin alphabet. −Woodstone (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have fixed [[Ft]]. For some reason, people often report problems without giving a link. As a procedure, I always want a problem report to be associated with a link. This is because there is often useful information in the link that is useful for the coding but has not been reported. This is now a known issue, no need to report further instances. Your feedback has been very useful, thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the metre links removed from impedance of free space concerned the definition of that unit; it wasn't just a usage of the unit with a gratuitous link. Is there some way of blocking Lightbot with a hidden comment or the like? --catslash (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't have happened. I have added some code to avoid it in future. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot keeps removing pre-infobox space.

See recent Lightbot changes to Hydraulic ram for an example. The {{Hydraulics}} template is a standard infobox template that looks poor when is only separated from the preceding text by a single newline. It is impractical to modify the infobox template to adjust its top margin, and so it seems reasonable to continue to put two spaces before such end-of-page infoboxes. However, Lightbot keeps removing these spaces. If pages with two empty spaces rendered the same as pages with a single empty spaces, then you could argue that Lightbot should remove the space. However, Lightbot is modifying how the page looks. That's obnoxious. Additionally, even if two spaces were treated the same as one by Wikipedia's markup interpreter, it may be useful for editors to add a little extra space to the source document for clarity. Do you have a comment? —TedPavlic | (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I do have comments. Firstly can you try to avoid words like 'obnoxious', they are unpleasant particularly for a first encounter with somebody that is acting in good faith. Secondly, removing empty lines is not a Lightbot primary task or part of Lightbot code, it is a feature of AWB 'General fixes' and Lightbot has that 'General fixes' set to 'on'. Therefore it is possible that any of the 2,200 users of AWB will do the same. So the best place to ask about this is at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I usually find the people there very helpful. If you post there, I will join the discussion as required. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. See Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#AWB_policy_on_double_spaces. —TedPavlic | (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I see your polite question there and I will watch to see the response that you get. Lightmouse (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, sorry to butt in. I'm glad to read that this is an AWB feature rather than something specific with the bot. Regardless of the merits of a single linespace versus two, the concern I'd have in this particular case is that the bot is essentially edit warring with the above user. The bot made an edit yesterday that included the removal of that double space, and the user made an edit to reinsert it. The bot made a further edit today that again included the removal of that double space, which the user has now reinserted again.
I think it's been suggested previously, but it's worth putting out there again — have you ever considered adding a filter to the bot so that it doesn't go back to articles that it's previously edited, or at least doesn't go back to them again until a certain period of time has passed? That would have avoided this situation, as well as that one from a few weeks back where the combination of the bot and your user scripts had added a distance conversion on several occasions over a period of months (I think it had to do with an election in Canada), all of which had been reverted.
In the end, while it could have been any of the 2,200 users of AWB, in this case it was the bot both times. Despite the intentions, which I'm confident were good, the optics aren't great. Mlaffs (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bots, like humans, can visit the same article on multiple occasions to do different things. The first occasion it fixed a redirect. The second occasion it delinked common units of measurement. On each occasion, AWB General Fixes were made. Many humans do exactly the same. So the issue is not about bot or a human editor. The issue here is about the status of spaces as a 'General fix' and our first action is to establish the facts about that feature. We can continue to speculate here in our mutual ignorance about the coding of that or we can ask the people that know at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I propose the latter. Lightmouse (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true — both bots and humans can visit the same article on multiple occasions to do different things. I've done that myself. There are some pertinent differences, though. A human might recognize that it had edited the article previously, further recognize that it had already made the edit that it was about to make again, and look at the history to see why it didn't stick the first time. A bot might not have that ability. A human making an edit, the primary purpose of which was to fix a redirect, might be pointed to WP:R2D and reminded that such edits are not necessary and generally discouraged. A human making only AWB general fixes might be pointed to the AWB rules of use, which caution against making insignificant or inconsequential edits, such as only removing white space or underscores from links — the other components of the first edit made in this case.
So, yes, the issue is about the status of spaces as a general fix, and I'll be sure to leave here and head to the discussion that's started regarding that issue. However, that issue gave rise to my question, about which I genuinely wondered, which seemed innocuous enough, and which I thought might even lead to productive discussion. That you completely avoided answering that question is curious, but it's your talk page, so I'll take my leave. Mlaffs (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to avoid the question, I thought that you were focussed on main issue and I try to focus on that. I had limited time to engage in multiple sidetrack issues that crop up but will not contribute to the main issue. My experience is that if I get involved in discussion about side issues that are not part of the solution, it is not always satisfying for either party. However, since you have prompted me for an answer, here goes... If I understand it correctly, you want to know if it is possible for Lightbot to avoid a second edit of an article. Yes, it is technically possible. You also wanted to know if Lightbot could avoid an article for a period of time. Yes, that is also technically possible. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot Causes False Edits

Lightbot has repeatedly created false edits on the demographics section of Eden Prairie that contain information which is counter to the census bureau's data for the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryps5 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to:

1. Give a link to the edit that you say is 'false'.

2. Give another link to the edit that you say is a repeated 'false edit'.

3. State which part of each edit is 'false'.

4. Define 'false' for each instance.

5. Sign your comment.

If you are able to give me this information, I will investigate and see what happened. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not delinking everything

Diff the bot delinked Foot (length) but not Inch (length). A note not regarding your bot but your script many people use, it will delink New York but not Idaho or something similar. Can it either remove links to all states or not remove the links? Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the article 'Inch (length)'. I see that it is a redirect with only 3 articles that link to it. It doesn't seem worth the effort of coding. Thanks for the suggestion but I don't think I will add it.

As far as geographical links such as 'New York' is concerned, I respond to user demand and pay little attention to what gets listed. You will have to ask the users but I understand that their aim is to reduce overlinking of geographical entities that are so widely known as to be almost 'plain english'. Thus to get into the list, a geographical entity would have to be widely known, and that is quite different from being a 'US state'. But if you want to know the real answer, you will have to ask the users.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm good

You seem to be doing a bug run. What was behind this edit? I'm guessing it had something to do with links to m/meter, but many articles link to m/letter. Gimmetrow 02:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not good. I will have to do something about that. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your extraordinary contribution

		The Special Barnstar
		Your leadership in the development and implementation of automated and semi-automated means of improving articles deserves this token of thanks. I hope the project continues to benefit from your expertise, sensitivity and hard work in 2009. Tony (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Lightmouse (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

~*YEAH!*~ thanks & praises for all your patient and courteous good work, Lightmouse. have a fine time seeing in a beautiful 09. Sssoul (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you have against the letter "M"?

Why is your bot delinking M and m while leaving other single-letter links intact? It makes things look funny when there is a row of 26 single-letter links in a table, and 25 of them are linked, while "M" is the only letter that isn't linked... AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please give me a link to the page where I did this. Lightmouse (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO%2FIEC_8859-15&diff=260967804&oldid=255900309 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO%2FIEC_8859-3&diff=260967819&oldid=232477719 happen to be on my watchlist... AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The bot was designed to reduce overlinking to common units of measurement in accordance with wp:overlink that says generally not to link:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement...

The letter 'm' is used as a symbol for 'metre' and was used in some of the excessive links. This is now a known issue. I have stopped the bot and will work on a solution. Thanks for reporting it. Lightmouse (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Delinking Question

I am curious as to why you are delinking "Meters", "Square Miles", and "Kilometers" (among other forms of measurement). Normally these are to be linked. I can find nothing saying these had to be delinked or where consensus was formed to delink them. Could you please get back to me? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:16