User talk:TerraCyprus/Archives/2020/10

Nomination to Miscelanny for deletion.
Hello TerraCyprus, I have fixed your transclusion of the MfD Discussion of User:Joan de Sa Bardissa/sandbox. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Asmodea Oaktree, thank you. And here is the edit that broke it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=981996672 TerraCyprus (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Switzerland municipality
Hi, your requested move of this template was carried out by User:Anthony Appleyard but has been reverted as it broke the template. If you still would like the move, there would need to be some discussion on how to carry it out without breaking it. Regards, &mdash; BillC talk 11:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:BillC thanks, very simple https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Swiss_town&action=history - has not been changed. TerraCyprus (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Guangxi map
I just wanted to give you a heads up that your edit here seems to have created an error that was corrected  Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Geographyinitiative, thank you for the report. Bad edit by me. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox settlement clean up
Hello, it's Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls again. There's been another flood of articles into the category after your clean up. This time it's duplicate occurrences of. Can you tidy it up please. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, cosmetic edits like this and like this, and in fact most of your edits in this multi-thousand-edit AWB run, are violations of AWB rule 4. Please preview to ensure that you are not making cosmetic edits, or submit a BRFA. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the first is the removal of a false reference, there is no Infobox Settlement, the second a preparation for adding a pushpin map, which now is active . TerraCyprus (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I only see two pages in that category and none of these has any edit by me. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone else has cleaned them up for you (Was it you ?). There were over 200 articles. - X201 (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * please refrain from statements like "for you", certainly they were not "for me" but for a better Wikipedia, like my edits. TerraCyprus (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the first is the removal of a false reference, there is no Infobox Settlement makes no sense. Infobox Settlement is a valid redirect and should not be replaced unless you are making a substantive change to the article (i.e. one that results in a change to the rendered article). If you do not understand this, you need to educate yourself or stop using AWB for such edits.
 * Being defensive about edits that introduced errors to many articles and massively violated AWB rules is not a good response. You should see many reverts of your erroneous edits in your notifications; I reverted about 20 of your erroneous edits. Someone else presumably took care of the rest for you. Yes, for you; I cleaned up your erroneous edits. I just reverted two more erroneous edits; please slow down and use Preview. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Being aggressive is a good response? Maybe look at WP:AGF. Yes, for you; I cleaned up your erroneous edits. but you didn't do it for me, but for Wikipedia? If it was for me, it would only be edits to educate or punish me. What was this cosmetic(?) edit about, where you reverted general fixes applied by AWB, and removed "| pushpin_map=Poland"? Indeed, that one seems to be "for me", not for an improvement of the article.
 * You should see many reverts of your erroneous edits in your notifications; - yes I saw some reverts, but not many. And I re-applied my changes in each(?) case plus doing something more. Reverting a bunch of changes when only one part is wrong, will lead to only more edits.
 * I just reverted two more erroneous edits that is and . What did you improve with the second? In both cases I now edited the pages again.
 * please slow down - slowing down without changing anything else will not reduce the number of errors. and use Preview - there is not Preview of the rendered HTML in AWB, i.e. that coord expects some parameters to be joined by _ and not separated by | will not show as an error in AWB. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason that you did not see more reverts is that a bot cleaned up hundreds of your errors.
 * Please slow down and look more carefully instead of simply reacting defensively. The edit you linked was not a cosmetic edit: it fixed your error and removed excess space that you added between the navbox and the stub tag. This revert undid two big red error messages. Both of those reverts were improvements. Please take the time to read WP:AWBRULES, especially rule 4, which you violated hundreds of times in recent edits. And please use Preview before you save, making sure to check the hidden categories and look for notifications of errors. If AWB does not have a Preview function, it is your responsibility to look at the rendered page after you save to ensure that you have not introduced error-tracking categories, red error messages, or other problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * instead of simply reacting defensively. I am not doing that, and you are aware of that . a bot cleaned up hundreds of your errors - as part of a general run, as can be seen by the mixed in other fixes of errors of the same kind "Repair duplicate template arguments". The link above shows a bit more than 250 caused by me. Above you wrote multi-thousand-edit AWB run and now the bot fixed 250+ and Wikipedia is better than before.
 * it fixed your error and removed excess space that you added between the navbox and the stub tag. - it is "cosmetic" if it didn't change the HTML, did it change the HTML? The "excess space" was added by AWB / general fixes, good luck fighting against that and reverting edits applying general fixes. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will phrase this as simply as possible: Please do not violate AWB rule 4 again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What a long talk, please post a diff for the most recent edit of mine before "18:20, 27 October 2020" where I did so in your opinion. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already posted links to cosmetic (trivial) edits above, but this edit, from less than an hour before your requested time stamp, failed to result in a change to the rendered page. That edit was a violation of AWB rule 4, made after you had repeatedly been asked to stop violating the rule. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So one edit at 17:33, I am sorry for that. Any other between 15:05 and 18:20?
 * That edit was a violation of AWB rule 4, made after you had repeatedly been asked to stop violating the rule - can you show where I have been asked repeatedly before 17:33? I only find 15:05 and tried my best to not violate the rule. TerraCyprus (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned the AWB rules at least four times on this page. I do not see any other trivial edits since 15:05, but there are over 80 edits in article space, some of which have been fixed, reverted, or both, so I did not look at all of them. Now that you are well aware of the rule, I trust that you will take care not to violate it again. Please go forth and edit constructively. You are improving many articles; just take care to make sure that each of your edits really is an improvement and stays within the rules. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That edit was a violation of AWB rule 4, made after you had repeatedly been asked to stop violating the rule - can you show where I have been asked repeatedly before 17:33? I only find 15:05 and tried my best to not violate the rule. TerraCyprus (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned the AWB rules at least four times on this page. I do not see any other trivial edits since 15:05, but there are over 80 edits in article space, some of which have been fixed, reverted, or both, so I did not look at all of them. Now that you are well aware of the rule, I trust that you will take care not to violate it again. Please go forth and edit constructively. You are improving many articles; just take care to make sure that each of your edits really is an improvement and stays within the rules. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks
Please stop using the "thanks" feature to indicate approval for edits I made years ago. The repeated notifications are intrusive. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ask the developpers to remove the feature. I can't keep track of such individual requests. TerraCyprus (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Davos
Hi there, I apologize for the accidental rollback. Thank you for undoing that. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * HickoryOughtShirt?4, now we thanked each other and each of us has a smiley in the notice section :-). TerraCyprus (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)