please correct White Settlment— name was given to the town by the indigenous people. Also the church gunman was taken down by one shooter not two.

Brussels is on the wrong location in the map of the battle of Landen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B18C:A00:19D8:A7B1:4127:C3A7 (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Re 1872 Lone Pine earthquake edit warEdit

Hi! Re the edit war at 1872 Lone Pine earthquake: please don't forget that even in a rightful cause we should not edit war. Also: don't forget that you have friends! If some idiot should start hacking away somewhere (not that I have anything particular in mind) the proper corrections should be done as a group, not one-on-one. Most certainly you should avoid WP:3RR. Okay, I presume you really know all that. I will advise the other editor, and hopefully that will be end of that. :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes sir. I knew you were watching the article, but you know how it is sometimes thinking that after this communication surely the editor will understand. All good though (mostly). Recently I have been quite aware of the shortcomings of the way editor interactions around here, but I know that there are folks working on improvements in that area. Thank you JJ for your support. Dawnseeker2000 09:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Shortcomings? What?? I say just get a big stick and...... oh.
Well, I should thank you, too, for taking care of lot of the routine maintenance stuff when I'm busy burrowing into deep holes. If one of those holes ever collapses before I have it properly shored up you'll surely come and dig me out, right? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
You want me to what?! (jk, of course) Dawnseeker2000 17:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

NGC 3242Edit

Hello, sorry to have to contact you but I'm largely clueless when it comes to wiki edits and you provide ample evidence that you are clueful.

My first tentative edit to NGC 3242 put in the currently accepted distance --- the Gaia-DR2 measurements of the central white dwarf. A citation has been inserted but I'm not at all happy with its appearance and don't know how to improve it. As you are the last recorded author ...

Any chance that you could tidy up my citation please? I would then have a template to be adapted to future situations.


(I must also create an account one day. FYI, I'm --- though with many more strings to my bow than given there. For a start I'm an amateur astronomer; my work can be found all over the net under the pseudonyms "Xilman" and "Brnikat". (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Paul. Please let me know what you think about my effort. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 12:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks!

My account is now "Xilman". I'm almost, but not quite, as completely clueless as before. Xilman (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And please point me whereEdit

There are two sets of rules at WP. One for administrators and one for everyone else. Administrators use edit summaries for personal attacks, the community yawns or slaps them on the back. An editor does the same, the community yells 'They violated WP:CIVIL'. An administrator calls[1] an editor a petulant piece of shit and gets away. It happens and BHG of course walks away and she knows better. Explain the double standard to me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And the community just loves people who write-My heart goes out to you. But I am sure you can do much better by yourself and your family than to try the shameful stunt of misusing your son's memory as a cheap stick to beat me with. The community here protects monsters/abusers/ etc etc. People who protect the abusers are no less despicable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1898 Mare Island earthquakeEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1898 Mare Island earthquake you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1898 Mare Island earthquakeEdit

The article 1898 Mare Island earthquake you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1898 Mare Island earthquake for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1898 Mare Island earthquakeEdit

I haven't yet figured out why the bot marked this GA as failed instead of passed, perhaps due to the order of the templates on the talk page. I'm still working on clearing that up. Sorry about the miscommunication. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

All good. I saw the mishap earlier, but it did not worry or surprise me. I think that sometimes we all just need to ask ourselves (about the Wiki software) "what's it doing now?" 😉 Thanks for your input on the article. There are still some minor changes that I have thought of that will improve the clarity of the writing. Dawnseeker2000 02:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing dated templatesEdit

Please do not change dated templates in articles. Doing so gives a false impression that a certain style (date format, engvar etc) has been in use for less time than it has. It would be appreciated if you could revert the changes you have already made. Apologies for the rollback, that was an error. I have undone the rollback, but the change to the template needs to be restored. Mjroots (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for letting me know about this. I'm mostly done editing for the evening, but we'll need to talk about this a bit more. I've changed thousands of articles in this way in the last couple of months. I understand there are several veiwpoints on the use of these templates, but I can tell you that I've seen some very odd usage in my recent editing. Here, for example, a popular article (James Webb Space Telescope) with a good amount of experienced editors that failed to see what you mentioned (the idea that an article has had a style in use since the template date). Apparently, every experienced editor on that article has not noticed that there were two styles competing (for over a year).
What I did to resolve that issue was to just look at the history of the article to determine when each template was placed and go with the "original" (MOS:RETAIN). It took several minutes to look at the history to find out who, when, and what. So I think that that is the solution to the perceived problem that you mentioned. This was not the only instance of the "dual date format" issue, so I do think that there are problems being solved with this AWB run (that I had intended to pursue for quite some time (there are many articles that appear that they haven't been touched by experienced hands in some time). That, by the way, is what I see when I see templates that are dated in the early 2010s. And conversely, when I see a template that's dated more recently, I can say to myself that yes, the ohconfucious script has been run more recently and there is less of a chance that there are date formatting inconsistencies on this article.
So what do you think? Are there other editors that would prefer leaving the original date? Has there been discussion about this before? Am I making a mess of things? Do we need to revert my several thousand recent changes? Thanks for your input. Dawnseeker2000 04:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem with altering a template is that if an editor changes the date format or variant of English in use, it is harder to argue that the original format was in use since the original date. I'm not certain that there has been discussion elsewhere, but it is likely. Possibly worth escalating this to WT:MOS if you want a wider audience. Naturally, if there are two competing styles in an article, we go with the original style unless there are good reasons not to - e.g. British subject in American date style, but that is no something I have an issue with here. Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I can see the potential for arguments around here; never any shortage of those. I can't specifically recall a date format boxing match though. I do remember a pretty long winded debate over the variety of English used on the space station article. Do you have the Ohconfucious date script installed or care to give it a whirl? Dawnseeker2000 15:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the script installed, or intend to. That said, I've been thinking and there may be a work-around. What are your thoughts re creating a hidden maintenance category to keep track of when AWB was run across an article? Obviously this is going to need to be discussed at an appropriate venue before implementation. The category could be called "AWBlastrun" and could take the format of {{AWBlastrun|date=September 2019}} on articles, allowing other templates to be left alone with their original dates. It would work in a similar way to the other templates, but would be updatable. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Well don't forget that there are two methods that the template is being updated. There's Ohconfucius's standalone script that can be installed and then there's the AWB module. I use both (they produce slightly different results). So this isn't primarily an issue that is specific to AWB. What I can tell you is that at the moment, about 1,000 articles per day are being tagged and/or updated. Not all by me; that is from every user that engages in the work. I can also tell you that what I'm doing aligns with what he had intended and what (presumably) the community agreed upon. ChrisGualtieri was doing the same type of work that I am back in 2013 and Walter Görlitz had the same concern that you have now. Ohconfucius did a little talk page stalking and chimed in on the conversation stating what I just said. I don't know that it is necessarily worth pursuing a tracking cat. Dawnseeker2000 19:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Order of article elementsEdit

Further to the above discussion (I don't have a problem with changing the date whatsoever; there's the article history if you want to find out more), I wonder why your "minor nitpicking" edits change the order of the elements? Is it the AWB module that causes it? If so, it shouldn't, as MOS:ORDER has the date style template in fifth place. What should come first are short descriptions and then hatnotes. This edit, for example, is thus not MOS-compliant. Any thoughts? Schwede66 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have plenty of thoughts, but I'm too lazy to type them all out. I can experiment with organizing per WP:ORDER. I'll have to change my edit summary to "major nitpicking" though. Dawnseeker2000 01:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Cite problemEdit

Hello, your AWB changes to articles appear to be causing problems. This example shows the problem where you are removing |df=dmy rather than |df=dmy-all and the "-all" gets left in the preceding parameter of the cite. Keith D (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to let me know. Dawnseeker2000 15:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There's a tricky bit with the work/publisher/website/newspaper parameters. I've changed back the "publisher" to "Trinity Mirror" on Murder of Joanna Yeates, since that is what Trinity Mirror are, and the "newspaper" parameter was overriding it. There's a similar situation with Louise Richardson where "work" and "website" are both specified. Thanks again for your timely note earlier. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC).

Thanks for double-checking those. Will be mindful of those changes going forward. Dawnseeker2000 22:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Also please preview your edits before saving. I have fixed this one for you (and this one). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. I will monitor Category:Pages with citations having redundant parameters when I use AWB with that module. Dawnseeker2000 05:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vassilis Lambropoulos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

New message from DBigXrayEdit

Hello, Dawnseeker2000. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 10:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXray 10:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dawnseeker2000,
I am here to talk about the issue of Kantipur Television Network. With the right information and references I added the names and posts of the associated journlist. So, can you please help me by telling why you removed this topic?

Hello @Rawal Bishal:, the only change I made to that article was remove an external link from the lead. It was a simple alignment with the manual of style. Hope that helps, Dawnseeker2000 19:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


Hello. I see that you use scripts to fix issues with articles. Where might I get started with those? I'm fairly decent with this kind of stuff, but I don't want to mess anything up. Thanks! Demetrius Tremens (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Demetrius Tremens:, I primarily use this one for maintaining date formatting and this one for converting hyphens to endashes. They're not foolproof; they both require knowledge of what they're doing and why (and what formatting is appropriate in the articles and why). For an overview of scripts in general on WP, you can check out Wikipedia:User scripts. Dawnseeker2000 03:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Demetrius Tremens (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Granada Reports, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Earthquakes in CaliforniaEdit

Hi Dawnseeker2000, I saw that you had recently undone a revision to the page on Lists of Earthquakes in California. We recently had an earthquake of 4.7 in Tres Pinos – is this worth adding to the list? I thought I'd reach out to you before adding first. I noticed the smallest earthquake on the list was 4.9 and thought it best to double check. Jjsera (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for checking. It is not worth adding those minimal shocks to the list. Can you imagine if we did? The list would take quite a while to scroll through. The catalogs do a much better job of listing those type of events than we ever could so we just focus on the notable events. Dawnseeker2000 21:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you for the explanation! Jjsera (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for all the nice MOS edits! One thing I noticed, though, is that you don't need 30em -- the reflist tag makes the columns automatically without it and adjusts them for each person's monitor settings. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Ssilvers, Dawnseeker2000 06:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
(tps) It does it automatically if you have more than ten references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
tyvm Gerda Arendt for that additional detail. It's appreciated. Dawnseeker2000 07:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Marcelo Gonçalves Vieira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Guardian
Marco Aurélio Ribeiro Barbieri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Guardian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bad ISBNs in Sergeant articleEdit

Hello Dawnseeker2000. I watch the category of invalid ISBNs, and I happened to see that a problem was created by your recent edit of the Sergeant article. If you view the bottom of the rendered article (reference 10) you may notice a bunch of parameter errors in red. This is a complaint of invalid ISBNs. It is not clear to me how your edit might have caused this, but it's puzzling. Do you have any ideas? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I need one of those disclaimers on my user page: "I reserve the right to screw up and/or cause disruption." Apologies, it was the endashes that caused the issue. I've cleaned up after myself. Thank you for stopping by and don't hesitate to do the same again. Dawnseeker2000 00:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


Our style guides do not apply within titles or to actual article names where there is a choice of styles. The article Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011 is probably correctly named, but you should not change it to Tornado outbreak sequence of 21–26 May 2011. (Although, it might not be a bad idea to add a redirect.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. Dawnseeker2000 22:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Breaking change to “failed verification” parameterEdit


Your change from last week replaced “smart” quotes with straight ones within the reason parameter of a Failed verification (thanks for the change), but that requires some precaution:

I have fixed the article in question to use " instead. I am reporting this to you because I couldn’t figure out which one of the scripts you used did this specifically.

Spidermario (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello and many thanks for bringing this here. The change was most likely brought about by the Ohconfucius AWB module. Dawnseeker2000 17:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Green Sahara link on 2010 Sahel famineEdit

I am not sure if this link change from Green Sahara to African humid period is a good idea. Yes, currently the former redirects to the latter, but it is possible that there will be an article on Green Sahara periods someday and then a link to Green Sahara might be more apropos. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please handle it as you see fit. Seems like you have a good handle on the topic. Take care! Dawnseeker2000 09:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed one of your recent edits to an article stub I had revised. I've actually been spending a bit of time researching the person in somewhat depth since my edit that you did a minor edit on. I noticed on your page that you have done several article creations, and was wondering if you might be willing provide some expert advise on my efforts. I have not done an article before so want to make sure that I don't mess up format or references or anything. I'm also not too familiar with which templates to use and how. All I have is the base information, and want to be able impart it in a cohesive manner.Kerryelaysahn (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Bug: you need to exclude image namesEdit

In this recent edit, the script you based your edit on didn't tell you that image file names (parameters of the form photo[1-7][a-g], I think) have to be left unedited, even if they don't follow style. While putting an apostrophe in a file name is a bad idea, it's up to you to rename the file at Commons first if you intend to fix "bad" image file names. I assume you did check your robot's proposed edit by eye, but in this case you missed the messed up photomontage.

Apart from that, your recent bunch of edits on pages I keep track of seems fine. :) Boud (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for the notification. See you down the road in the new year! Dawnseeker2000 16:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing non-breaking spacesEdit

Can you explain why you did this? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. Does it bother you? Dawnseeker2000 21:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Dawnseeker2000, It does, yes. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 02:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


You recently used a bot on the 119th Field Artillery Regiment page. However, I have some clarification questions. But first, thank you for finding a lot of little typos. I was going to proofread today but your bot beat me to it :-)

  1. The dashes and quotations used, are they different from what you type on the keyboard? If one wanted to use the ones the bot corrected from the beginning how to do you use them
  2. It is my understanding that the date parameter of dd/mm/yyyy is only accurate when there is a year involved. If no year is provided because it would be redundant to say it again or if it is unknown then the month should precede the day. Please clarify and if I am incorrect please provide sources for having the day before the month when the year is not involved even under dd/mm/yyyy format.
    Update: I read MOS:DATEUNIFY and MOS:DATEFORMAT and answered my own question. So thank you for fixing this. I still have questions on the #1, 3 and 4 Boston1775 (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Your bot removed blank lines I inserted between paragraphs when a picture was inserted to make it easier to read in edit mode. That was deliberate and had no effect on the display of the page. The previous comment above asks for an explanation as well. If no reasonable explanation exists then I plan to reinsert them as I have been working non-stop on that page for two weeks and for ease in my editing the blank lines help.
  4. before 11 September attacks the article "the" was removed. Normally the article "the" does not precede a date but in this case, the date is the name of the event. Unlike the 7 December 1941 which is referred to as the "Attack on Pearl Harbor", the events on 11 September 2001 would have the article "the" preceding it.

I look forward to your feedback. Thank you. Boston1775 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Boston1775:. Thanks for the well thought out questions. Well, to start off I'd like to point out that you have noticed at least one mistake on my part. There was a lot going on in that edit and I did not properly proof read before saving. The "the" should have been re-inserted by me before hitting the save button. That happens as a by-product of the two scripts that I use for unifying date formats.
The other thing you were asking about was the curly apostrophe. I honestly do not know where they come from. I live in the United States and the keyboards that I've used only make the straight variety (so it's easy for us here to comply with MOS:STRAIGHT). There must be other parts of the world that use a different character set and encoding that produce the curved type. Dawnseeker2000 10:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Maybe "curly" was not the adjective I should have used. In one of the edits, the bot literally went through and replaced quotations with what looked like the same quotations just slightly different. Its hard to explain but it seemed pointless unless there was a style difference and I couldn't find any. But basically I was asking how to use the correct quotations so that the bot thinks everything is perfect. Same thing with the dashes. It replaced dashes I had with slightly longer dashes that my keyboard will not produce. Oh and I think you might have forgotten about my blank lines question. Sorry, I am a stickler for details. Boston1775 (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Boston1775:, the removal of the blank lines was done from the program that I use (AWB). It's part of the "general fixes" portion of what it does. The change to the dashes that I made were from a tool that I use in the browser, but you can also access the different dashes in the toolbar under "Wiki markup". There are the endash – the emdash — and the minus sign −. Dawnseeker2000 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

ISBNs in Bulgarian TurksEdit

Hi Dawnseeker2000. I fixed two ISBNs in which hyphens had been replaced by dashes in your recent edit. It is easy to check whether an edit has caused ISBN problems. The page gets added to the Category:Pages with ISBN errors. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you boss, Dawnseeker2000 22:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

UK General Election ResultsEdit

The current results format for the British General elections appear in two different formats. For example see the difference between the format used for 1900 United Kingdom general election and 1906 United Kingdom general election and look under the heading for 'Leader'. My view is the seat total should be first and then followed by the figure for number of candidates etc. I started making changes to the 1906 page but then saw there were other errors in other pages as regards formats. Thoughts? --Gepid (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Gepid, whatever you think is best for that set of articles (and whatever WikiProjects are involved) is fine. My only interest was very minimal. All I have been doing on WP for months is formatting dashes and date formats, with a little bit of link maintenance (both internal and external). Boring! Take care, Dawnseeker2000 16:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing archive urlsEdit

Hi, in your edits to Astigmatism today, you removed archive urls from a bunch of references. (parameters url-status=live and archiveurl=). Why did you do this? Those were added by a bot not long ago as part of a program to add archive links to references. Note that the url-status=live parameter keeps the archive link inactive until it is needed (when the cited source eventually goes offline.)--Srleffler (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, when I see Google Books links that are archived I usually remove them as redundant. I'm thinking that whoever wrote the code to whatever tool is doing that should consider excluding links to Google content. It's like archiving an archive. In other words, I don't see any website/project that is archiving data any better that Google is. Dawnseeker2000 01:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with your logic.--Srleffler (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Please preview your edits before savingEdit

Thanks for your work on reference cleanup, but as other editors have noted, it's important to preview before saving. In this edit, for example, you've changed the "publisher" field in the LA Times reference to "work". A quick preview shows a warning at the top of the page that this introduced a duplicate "work" field in that ref.
And in this edit, a reference was broken and a small but important chunk of article content was removed. Again, preview helpfully showed the errors in the reference section. Thanks, Freezer Bernie (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Bernie (stay warm!). For anyone interested in what's been said here please see User:Dawnseeker2000 § Mistakes while editing in bulk for a few sentences that may help clarify my editing philosophy and intentions. Dawnseeker2000 14:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Do I understand you correctly from that linked page, that you expect to make errors in bulk while using AWB, and believe that devolving correction to maintainers of categories like CAT:DUPARG is an acceptable price to pay for speed? Because WP:AWBRULES says "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving." If I've misunderstood you, then please feel free to correct me. Freezer Bernie (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to give you some advice. But first, I'd like to ask you a question. Is this your only account on this website? The reason I'm asking is because you've been here two months and have accrued about 2,000 edits. That's not a lot of experience, so you may consider just focusing on what you are doing rather than the actions of others. This website operates at a blistering speed and everyone's experiences and perceptions are different. That's not even considering what is actually happening, and it is very easy to overlook the obvious. Take care, Dawnseeker2000 00:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Whatever his experience, he's right. Using an automated tool does not excuse you from responsibility for your edits. Automation enables you to do a lot of harm quickly, and makes it difficult for other editors to fix your mistakes. If you're going to use an automated tool, your editing quality needs to be better than that of a typical editor. Slow down and check your work.--Srleffler (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I dont think either of you can appreciate what I've said. Editing here is error prone, no matter what method one uses. If other people's mistakes bother either of you to the extent that you're willing to give instructions on how to do something with which you may or may not have direct experience, the problem may lie elsewhere. Please just keep your side of the street clean. Dawnseeker2000 02:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


Please pay attention when using scripts. You are responsible for any errors you make such as at Quebec City. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If I spent my time letting every active editor know when they fucked up, that is all I would do on this site. Dawnseeker2000 06:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
So you expect others to clean up after you. All I am saying is take a bit of care and stop trying to up your edit count. Creating red links from blue and not caring about it is disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Get off your high horse. Do you not realize I fix plenty of others' errors around here? I heard your message about the dashes last time you stopped by here. I don't need to hear it twice, so please don't come back unless you'd like me to repetitively point out yours. Dawnseeker2000 08:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diederick Santer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

please fix your scriptEdit

See this edit where your script broke several cs1|2 citation templates by renaming |publisher= to |work= when the templates already held |website=. |website= is one of several a mutual aliases of |work=; cs1|2 templates are not allowed to have more than one of these parameters.

The minimally correct 'fix' for these several templates would have been to delete |publisher= since that parameter duplicates information in |website=. The better fix, because The Guardian is a newspaper, would be to change the templates from {{cite web}} to {{cite news}}, change |website= to |newspaper=, and delete |publisher=.

Please fix your script.

Trappist the monk (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am not unaware of what is happening. Dawnseeker2000 15:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This edit (first ¶ after ln 54) shows that while you may be [aware] of what is happening, you have done nothing to fix your script or those efforts to fix it have not corrected the problem. Please fix your script.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
And another, (third ¶ after ln 57). Please fix your script.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage with you. It's because of the tone you're using. I'm a person who improves this website for the fun of it and I don't need to see these types of brusque messages. Just so you know, there's a lot to say about what we do here, and we could have have had a productive conversation that may have resulted in an improved experience for the both of us. With that said, you should take this experience as a missed opportunity. Take care and please do not come back. I've fixed your errors after all. Dawnseeker2000 01:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I accept that you don't want to hear this. but please fix your script. Here we are four months later and your script is still broken. You made this edit today converting |publisher=[[The Independent]] to |work=[[The Independent]] which is correct except that the template already had |

Please fix your script. If it is not fixable, then please disable this functionality so that I and others don't have to cleanup after you.

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Please fix your script (again)Edit

You seem to have vandalised this page:

Can you have a look? Damiantgordon (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was pure vandalism. Thanks! Dawnseeker2000 14:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) Damiantgordon (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Date formatEdit

Please read MOS:DATEUNIFY before automatically changing ISO dates in |accessdate= to DMY. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrospective violation of CITERETAINEdit

When {{Use dmy dates}} templates were added to articles, they did not alter access and archive dates. A very recent change to the way CS1/2 templates work has retrospectively made the 'bare' use of this template violate WP:CITERETAIN, by changing access and archive dates. When an article has consistent or majority YYYY-MM-DD archive and access dates, the correct thing to do is to add |cs1-dates=ly to {{Use dmy dates}}, not to change the format of the access and archive dates against clear guidelines. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield and Peter coxhead: I've got this sorted out now. What I have been doing since last summer(ish) is running Ohconfusious's DMY module (the whole thing (about 100KB of scripts)) in AWB. Over time I have been removing unnecessary sections (actions), and today I located and removed the bit that was modifying ISO dates in templates. So all good on that front. The other tool I use is his script that runs in the browser. While the "Body dates to DMY/MDY" option had been removed for several months, it has now been restored (about a month or so ago I think) so I can use that instead of the all-encompassing "DATES to DMY" version. Thank you guys for your patience as I experiment and refine my process. It's appreciated! Dawnseeker2000 21:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I regard this as a problem caused by the changes to the code implementing CS1/2 citations; it should never use a 'bare' use of {{Use dmy dates}} to change access/archive dates. Anyway, I'm glad to know that there's a way round this problem. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The The New York TimesEdit

Hi, I know a bit about "New York, New York" so good they named it twice, but I'm not sure I get the additional The for The The New York Times. Does your script need a tweak? Or should The New York Times be moved to The The New York Times? ϢereSpielChequers 17:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, now there's someone who thinks outside the box! I appreciate you stopping by to show support. I'll begin the move request this eve. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 19:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Random questionEdit

I saw your edit here to DVT.[2] It added a semantic scholar url to the reference named "Casella". When I went to that semantic scholar page, it gave me 2 choices, a PDF or taking me back to PubMed. I just made an edit to DVT replacing the semantic scholar link with the PDF link.[3] What is the logic to having links to semantic scholar? Sometimes they appear to not even provide a freely-accessible version of the article. However, whenever I see a url link on a scientific article, I always think it is implicitly telling our reader "click here to come to a free-full text version of this scientific publication!" I believe I am conditioned to think this way because of the preponderance of PubMed central links. Anyhow, what's the point of linking to semantic scholar? Am I missing something? I thought you might be able to help me understand this practice. Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been pinged into this discussion.
There was a recent discussion at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 19 § Semantic scholar 2 that spawned a current discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Request to add Semantic Scholar IDs to the citation template because s2 urls link to a landing page rather than to the article of record. The edit that you are complaining about was made by Citation bot overseen by Editor Dawnseeker2000.
I think that your replacement of the s2 url with the url may violate WP:ELNEVER. Because the article of record at SAGE is behind a paywall, it is doubtful that SAGE are happy to have s2 linking what may be a pirated copy of their article. It seems to me that the best thing for you to do is to remove the url and link to the article through |doi=10.1177/0003319708316897. That way there is no question of WP:ELNEVER problems.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologiesEdit

You asked a question. I answered it. I'm sorry if my answer was unwelcome. Cabayi (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giannis Skondras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Broken infoboxesEdit

Hi there, just wanted to ask if there was a way you could be mindful of not removing necessary infobox brackets when moving things like {{Use dmy dates|date=September 2010}}. I've just found several instances where the ending bracket - |}} was collateral damage, resulting in a trashed infobox. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Gah, I'm such a troll! Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 02:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!Edit

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
  The 2019 Cure Award
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Mole ValleyEdit

Can you please re-check your recent edits to Mole Valley? As far as I can see, you started by correctly converting a number of hyphens to en-dashes, and then promptly self-reverted with the edit summary "minor nitpicking". I suspect this was just a slip, but you would probably be best placed to sort things out. Eric Pode lives (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eric Pode lives: Hi, and thanks for bringing this up. I have seen this once before. It happened because I use AWB and tools in the browser simultaneously. Usually, I will run AWB first then follow up with an edit in the browser. What happened this time was that I made a change in the browser first, then failed to reload the page in AWB before saving, thus restoring the previous content. I must have been distracted. Dawnseeker2000 14:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Images of business jetsEdit


A tag has been placed on Category:Images of business jets requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"Updating" template datesEdit

What is the purpose of your "updating" the dates on template to March 2020? The templates have been placed with their original date for a very good reason: to show how long the article has been thus tagged. You are breaking this continuity for no good reason by updating the date. It is not "as of" this date, it is "since" this date. Please stop this until it can be discussed. Elizium23 (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You have begun to revert me but you have not begun to discuss here or answer my discussion. This is disruptive. Elizium23 (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello there, I would prefer not to type out the reasoning again, so please see the section about titled "Changing dated templates". Thanks! Dawnseeker2000 07:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
So I see that other people have objected to it and you have no adequate response to why your way is better than the way everyone else does it. Okay. Elizium23 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You can remove the authorlink templates I leave in if you want but I don't because I never know when the author will get an article. Keith-264 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

If you change template dates, why not refer to it instead of the general minor nitpicks comment? It would obviate the concerns expressed by other editors. Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Keith-264: That was a good idea. I've added the word "audit" to my edit summaries. Thanks for that! Dawnseeker2000 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Karan Singh Grover article update neededEdit

Hello, @Dawnseeker2000: the article Karan Singh Grover needs to be updated. It's has been a while that nobody has updated it with reliable information about the shows like BOSS: Baap of Special Services, their is some wrong information available in the article which should be rectified. Thanks, please do the needful correction by verification both the article Karan Singh Grover and BOSS: Baap of Special Services. 2409:4061:96:25C2:0:0:1136:18A1 (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


Well I'm not surprised by the AfD outrage. I expect that it will be kept, although as yet none of the "keep" votes had mentioned a single guideline - that's just the way things are when an earthquake shakes the english-speaking world. Thanks for trying, Mikenorton (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I am not surprised that folks were not in agreement with my statement, but I am totally OK with that. I think that in general, time is on our side. One tactic we could use is to bring these types of articles to AFD in a repetitive way. I'm still young, so my plan is to bring some that are on my list up against AFD once again. This one, like you said, will probably be kept this time, but down the road a ways, editors may be swayed by a healthy dose of reality. 😉 Dawnseeker2000 20:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stopEdit

Please do not "fix" file names. All it does is prevent the file from being displayed. - Sumanuil (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020Edit

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Changing the ENGVAR of an article to EnVarB is unacceptable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hawkeye7. This is Earth. Welcome! Dawnseeker2000 07:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
G'day Dawnseeker2000. You have broken 3RR on 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement. What on earth is an experienced editor like you doing edit-warring about the use dmy date template? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


Hi. I notice you use refill. Whilst this is a really useful tool, it is not foolproof. For example, it hasn't been updated since "dead-url=" was dropped in favour of "url-status=", causing error messages such as here. Additionally, for some reasons reFill doesn't add "archive-date=", which is required, when a url is archived at "" which also causes an error message to be thrown, such as here. Could I ask you to check your edits when using reFill. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Shouldn't have been editing at all last night. Was exhausted. Dawnseeker2000 21:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Clan Cunningham Reference to King Inge IslandEdit

Just wondering why the link to Cunningham being King Inge Island is missing the reference to Dr. Derek Cunningham, Clan Cunningham Communiques, which were published between 2015 to 2018.

On the 1st of May an addition was made to the Clan Cunningham website that refers the work of Murphy, Andrew (30 July 2018), "Shakespeare goes to Scotland", Shakespeare and Scotland, Manchester University Press, ISBN 978-1-5261-3510-0, retrieved 1 May 2020, This is after the work of Dr. Derek Cunningham

Clan Historian (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clan Historian: You may not have noticed the abundance of error messages down in the reference area prior to my changes, but I did my best to fix all of them. Those types of fixes, especially the "Pages with duplicate reference names" can be difficult to resolve without intimate knowledge of the content of the article and its sources. Dawnseeker2000 06:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

....Thanks for the changes. It looks a lot better.


Just wondering why you edited my family's Wikipedia page (Clan Sinclair) and if you have any connections to it. I suspect not considering you're an american.. Calkal (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I'm from the US and I'm just being a super nerd by going through the articles that haven't been audited for date unification for ages. Take care! Dawnseeker2000 22:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dawnseeker2000, I want to know why you reverted my changes. My changes were fine, as it has been backed by lots of evidence. Please revert the changes you did after I made my change, from [Clipper 1736] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clipper 1736 (talkcontribs) 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested script changeEdit

Regarding this edit, may I suggest that you swap Stuff (company) for Stuff (website)? You are referring to the news outlet, rather than the parent company that owns it. Schwede66 01:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Schwede66. I didn't write the script; I just press the button. You may want to petition Ohconfucius. He has control over what it does. Later, Dawnseeker2000 03:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rats (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Page (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020Edit

  Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. An edit that you recently made to Dnipro seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not change date formats in pre-existing templates. This template designates when the dmy and English B) was introduced, being 2014. Do not upgrade to 2020 as that is a waste of editor time being informed of unnecessary changes. Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Template date audit of DniproEdit

Hello, dawnseeker2000. Lovely to meet you. I actually spend a lot of time gnoming and affixing fundamental templates to article missing tags, or using incorrect navboxes, and have never encountered this policy/guideline. Could you please point out the relevant WP:PG as I'm only aware of the rule of historical precedence for template apply to language, time and date format etc. I don't see how this meets an audit when you've changed nothing, and haven't added the language parameter, or anything else. Anticipating your response. Thanks! Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline for this, but the intended purpose of Ohconfuscious's date formatting tools can be tracked down if interested and my use of them (the modification of the template date) aligns with how they were intended to function. You can peruse the discussion further up the page if you like for more information. In one of those discussions I posted a link to a comment that he posted a while back that clarifies that what I've just said hits the nail on the head. Dawnseeker2000 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: - Both Template:Use dmy dates and Template:Use mdy dates are clear in their documentation the the date refers to "the month and year that the article was last checked for inconsistent date formatting". This is to prevent duplication of checking date formats when they have been checked recently. Whether any changes were made during the check is irrelevant. Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Dawnseeker2000 and @John B123: I could have totted up a few thousand more points on the number of edits I've made. Makes a bod look like a very learned editor indeed. Yes, I guess that seems implied. I got so used to formatting new articles I worked on as we edit warred our way through them, I didn't examine the use of updating in the fine text. Cheers to you both, and keep up the good work. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Script glitchEdit

Your edit (diff) at PortAventura World has a glitch in that it included several changes like this:

{{convert|01438|ft|m}} (original)
{{convert|$21438|ft|m}} (new; 01438$21438)

Rather than fixing it myself I thought you would probably want to investigate—this is not a complaint! Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I corrected that one and looked at quite a few of other diffs from around that same time and didn't find any others that changed the convert templates. Those are not something that I target, so I'm assuming that that was some sort of anomaly, but will keep an eye out for similar instances going forward. Thank you boss, for bringing that here. Dawnseeker2000 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Date auditsEdit

Hi. Your recent "date audits" are randomly removing access date parameters from references. I've fixed Davy lamp and Emilie Schenkl for you, but if you've done any others you need to check them and repair them. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Martin of Sheffield: and sorry for the late reply. I am actually targeting those access dates. They are considered optional for works that have a publish date. Since the items that I'm targeting all have one, I'm removing the access date as redundant/unnecessary. Dawnseeker2000 02:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
In one sense you are quite correct, books do not need an access date since they are unchangeable or very nearly so. When I pick up my copy of The Aeneid it has not changed since it left the press in 1743. However you are also hitting citations where there is a URL, and the access dates refer to when the URL was checked, not the date of the book. URLs can be like the morning dew and therefore the access date is not redundant and is necessary to validate the URL. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that I'm only doing Google Book refs; those links are, relatively speaking, stable. I'll carry on with the understanding that we don't quite see this the same way, and that that's OK. Dawnseeker2000 00:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi there - i'm not sure about that Aceh addition. But why are we deleting it? Happy to have it deleted, just need to be clear on why. Do you think it's a copy vio? It's a pretty boring section where "Culture" is about traditional dance and weapons. My cleanup doesn't mean i necessarily think it should stay. --Merbabu (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a copyright infringement, but I did find that the text was lifted from a blog. I think if we are adding text to an article, it should be original, and that is why I used the edit summary that stated please use your own words. Thanks for asking, Dawnseeker2000 05:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you know it's from a blog? or you just suspect it? (reasonable guess!) Either way, it's not a great addition. --Merbabu (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It's these two here: [4] [5]
I have a habit of checking content that's added like that :). The larger additions usually catch my eye because I know how much work it takes to write something. Dawnseeker2000 07:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Clampi (trojan)Edit

Nice work, ty! I used to use AWB some more Huggle do automated edits. I'm just coming back from a 6 year hiatus and there's mostly been good changes. Can you cleanup Afrlican diaspora? Is the worst case of code jumble I've ever seen. I guess the days are gone where people actually groom and pretty up the wiki markup. I think when it's referring to music an opera it's Piero Ciampi often misspelt Clampi on youtube. Interesing, but this should not be a contested move. Technophant (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Technophant: and sorry for the late reply. Welcome back to WP. The Clamip article is looking much better. Thanks for that. I am loving Kitboda's channel, and that video in particular, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was challenged as a reliable source. Thanks for your work, Dawnseeker2000 22:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


Thank you for the helpful suggestions regarding the editing of Yellowstone National Park. I will definitely follow your advice in future edits. Wheatear20 (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

All good sir. Thanks for stopping by and just remember that there are so many aspects to this website and how it operates that no one person can possibly be super proficient in all areas (even those that have been around for a decade or more). So just realize that if there's ever something that you're uncertain on, just ask. More often than not you'll find someone that is able to give you a helping hand (and be nice about it). Dawnseeker2000 07:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


To pick: First, I really appreciate the Wikignome work you do and sometimes wish I had the skills to do things like you do to improve multiple articles in a short time. OTOH, I find that you clog my Watchlist on occasion so that I can't find the trees I seek in the forests you create. is their any way you could tag some of the small improvements you make as minor edits? I have the uncomfortable feeling thqt "the system" may not allow this. Maybe I'm just too lazy to scroll. ; ) --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Lineagegeek, not a problem. I've started the process of converting all my AWB settings to use the minor settings mark. I haven't been focusing as much recently on the military articles lately (that's where I see your username quite a bit) but as soon as I load up one of those settings I will also make the change. Take care, Dawnseeker2000 09:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem editEdit

Hello, there is a problem with your AWB substitutions. In this edit a $4 was put in inplace of a pipe symbol. Keith D (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock requestEdit

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Dawnseeker2000 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

Materialscientist blocked me inadvertently. The intended target was (talk · contribs) (a sock of Subzero mortal kombat (talk · contribs)) for continued unsourced additions at 1986 San Salvador earthquake. Dawnseeker2000 01:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See belowCaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

@Materialscientist: I am undoing this block, since it seems accidental, and is in line with another recent accidental Huggle block. Dawnseeker, sorry you got blocked, mistakes happen. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The ping subsystem must not be working right now. In an attempt to resolve this, I pinged him several times this eve without success. Dawnseeker2000 05:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dawnseeker2000. If you check the message at the top of User talk:Materialscientist he has pings turned off. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing accessdateEdit

I join Martin of Sheffield in opposing your removal of |access-date= from Google Books references. At a minimum your edit summary should wikilink to a relevant discussion where a consensus of other Wikipedians supports your practice. Your explanation that "access dates are not required for published books" is inadequate on two grounds: first, "not required" does not imply "should be removed"; and second it one might equally point out that |url= convenience links themselves are not required for published books. Removing a Google Books link altogether would not break or invalidate a reference but certainly would reduce its usefulness. Once you have a |url=, you ought to have an |access-date=. Linkrot may be less dangerous in the case of Google Books than other websites, but Google is not above unilaterally breaking its own free services, and removing |access-date= is of zero benefit. {{Cite book}} specifically includes the parameter in both its documentation and its output. jnestorius(talk) 15:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield and Jnestorius: Hello again. I'd like to request that either of you restate in different terms what the issue is. Martin of Sheffield wrote "URLs can be like the morning dew and therefore the access date is not redundant and is necessary to validate the URL" and Jnestorius wrote "Linkrot may be less dangerous in the case of Google Books than other websites, but Google is not above unilaterally breaking its own free services". I think what both of you may be saying is that websites can change their structure (even Google), and when that happens, the link will be broken. Please verify if I've understood this correctly or not, and if I did, please list the steps an editor would take, using the accessdate, to locate the new, unbroken URL. Dawnseeker2000 09:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
You are rather missing the point. A citation states where the information can be found. In the case of a book the date, edition, publisher, and for recent books the ISBN, precisely define the source. URLs are not that reliable. It is akin to saying the book is the third from the left on shelf two of my local bookseller, in other words the URL only defines a location and not a specific edition. Adding the date solidifies it to be this location at this date. If the URL contents change there is no dispute about the citation, just as if the bookseller rearranges his shelves. It is possible that with a date and URL that the Wayback Machine will help, without the date that is pretty forlorn. What you are doing is removing an optional and useful date that an editor has taken the time to provide for some unknown reason. In short, you are making an effort to pointlessly degrade someone else's work. Now please explain why. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I assume urls pointing to books with a preview on Google are being discussed here, as we shouldn't be linking to books without the preview. |access-date= is useful on most cite templates as a webpage can change over time and the |access-date= gives us a clue of what version of the page is being referred to. However, |access-date= is of no value for a |url= pointing to Google in {{Cite book}}. Books don't change over time except perhaps when a new edition is printed. Google treat different editions as separate books with separate urls, so a google url does define a specific edition. Should Google change it's url structure, |edition= and |isbn= would be the way to find the new url. As the Internet Archive captures of Google Books don't include the embedded preview, |archive-url= is of no value if the original url dies, so the need for a |access-date= to get the right archived copy isn't applicable here. --John B123 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Again: the access date validates the URL, it is irrelevant to the original physical book. Google does what it wants to obtain money, it has no commitment to us and guarantees about the URL long term stability are worhtless. Given that the date is "not required" rather than "banned" I ask again: why are you doing this? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
How does an access date validate a url? I could enter an incorrect url but as long as it had an accessdate it is validated? --John B123 (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course you could. Perhaps you do, but (naive as I might be) I start from the assumption that editors try to do the job properly. Let's take a simple example. Right now I could cite the website Sheerness, South East England which shows that the next high tide is at 0035 BST tomorrow morning. The URL is correct (I didn't lie, I cut and pasted it). If citing this I would give it an access date of 22:21 on 19 June 2020. Tomorrow morning, if you look at it, the next high tide will show as 1300 BST. You can't then come along and tell me that the time I quoted was wrong, only that the page the URL refers to had been changed. For this reason URLs normally must have an access date. This date indicates that the content the URL points to has been verified as supporting the article at that point in time. The mandatory requirement is relaxed for certain content where it is assumed that the contents are inviolate. That assumption may or may not be correct, but WP policy accepts that it is. But here we get to the nub of the issue; the relaxation of a mandatory requirement is not the same as its prohibition. Rather than boring other readers with fundamentals, if you need further help, ping me and I'll answer your questions on your talk page.
There is no reason to remove access dates except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You are wasting your time and deleting the work of other editors without reason.
Perhaps you could now answer the question: why are you doing this? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
You example of high tide times is pretty much what I was saying in my first post for most cite templates, which is not in dispute. That reasoning isn't applicable to google urls in {{Cite book}} as the content is static, if there is a different version of the book, then that has a different url.
Whilst on say {{Cite web}} it's desirable to have an access-date for the reasons discussed, the |access-date= does not validate the url, it just indicates when it was accessed, hence its name.
You seem to be confused about the requirements of cite templates, |url= is mandatory if |access-date= is present, but |access-date= isn't mandatory when |url= is used.
Copy and pasting a url isn't always a good idea. Often the url will contain session ids, referrer details, client details (browser etc) and so on. Effectively this is a record of a single pageview. If the page becomes dead, trying to rescue the url from an archive will result in a not found result because of the sid's etc.
Personally, I always add |access-date= to {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}} etc, but not on {{Cite book}} as it serves no use at all. That said, as it causes no problems, I wouldn't bother taking it out if it was already there. --John B123 (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The whole point of this conversation is that you have been running around doing "date audits" and removing access dates from citations! How does "I wouldn't bother taking it out if it was already there" square with "I am actually targeting those access dates"? (BTW, cut and paste is fine if you understand how a URL is built. In the example cited it is <scheme>://<host>/<path> where <path> is "weather/coast-and-sea/<south-east England>/<Sheerness>". No session information or other hidden data there.) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I think you're getting confused again. Dawnseeker2000 is the one who is removing the |access-date= not me. I am simply pointing out that your reasoning for the use of |access-date= with Google urls in {{Cite book}} doesn't hold water. --John B123 (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, fair point. I hadn't noticed the change. The fact still remains that both you and Dawnseeker are making the assumption that an organisation such as Google will preserve for all time the content to which a URL points, a fact that I would not trust. Let's agree to differ and hope that Dawnseeker comes around to your way of thinking if not mine. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
"not on {{Cite book}} as it serves no use at all." — Dawnseeker2000 has specified on this talk page (though, unhelpfully, not in their edit-summaries) that their accessdate deletion applies only to Google Books. Are you John B123 tacitly making the same restriction or do you truly believe that accessdate is never useful for any convenience links? That is manifestly untrue. While one usecase for accessdate is where the same URL has changed content, another is where the content has changed URL. One finds (excerpts from) books on many other (non-copyvio) websites which have fewer compunctions than Google about rejigging content and changing URLs. As WP:DEADLINK says "If the dead link includes enough information (article title, names, etc.) it is often possible to use it to find the Web page at a different location, either on the same site or elsewhere." I admit that the accessdate is often redundant in this process; I am unwilling to say it is always redundant, and it is simpler and safer to leave accessdate in the cite now than to try to work out how likely it is to prove useful later. jnestorius(talk) 10:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jnestorius: For clarity, this discussion started specifically about |access-date= with Google urls in {{Cite book}}. My comments are based on that situation. The content of Google book preview does not change over time, so there is no usefulness in adding |access-date=. The same is probably true for books on I am certainly not suggesting |access-date= should not be used in other situations, as the content of the url may change over time. --John B123 (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jnestorius: There's no need to wait until some inopportune time to find out how likely it may prove useful later. We can work that out right now. And by the way, I tried to lead the discussion down this road earlier, but my question was ignored, with the statement that I was "missing the point". I would say that it is the point. Tell me please what steps you'd take, using the accessdate, to restore a broken Google URL, given that date or year, publisher, title, and author are all present. Dawnseeker2000 11:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"I can't think of a reason" is not the same as "there is no reason". But some general principles: it is well known that Google Books metadata is often inaccurate. Editors often in good faith rely on such metadata without manually checking it. There are instances of multiple publications bound in a single set of covers and thus presented as a single Google Books item. Some future upgrade to Google Books may "fix" some of these issues. No doubt they will try to do so in a backward-compatible way, but that may not be possible in all situations. The Google Books item may no longer correspond to Wikipedia cite parameters. Knowing that the cite accessdate precedes such an upgrade date may help to diagnose the nature of such a problem. jnestorius(talk) 11:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
You know, I've been targeting Google Books citations specifically for the last year or so and have been working with them in general for about the last three or four years. During that time, I've used Apoc2400's Google Books citation tool quite a bit. Like thousands of times. The issues that you mention of the details being unreliable just don't resonate with me. Dawnseeker2000 19:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
jnestorius(talk) 15:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
So, you're still at it. Would you at least change the misleading "access dates are not required for published books" editsummary to the more accurate "I remove accessdates from Google Books convenience links"? jnestorius(talk) 12:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the text that I borrowed from {{cite book}}. Dawnseeker2000 14:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Well at least try reading it then. "Not required" does not meant "should be removed". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean Template:Citation Style documentation/url?
  1. That says "linked documents that do not change", not "published books" (or "Google books").
  2. It also says "Can be hidden or styled by registered editors" which you might want to consider instead.
  3. See also WP:WHENINROME "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference".
  4. If you insist on persisting, I have created WP:BKACDT for your edit summaries.
jnestorius(talk) 06:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Template:Citation Style documentation/url clearly states: Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates --John B123 (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
And I clearly state At a minimum your edit summary should wikilink to a relevant discussion where a consensus of other Wikipedians supports your practice. — so can you please use WP:BKACDT? jnestorius(talk) 10:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I read that the first time you wrote it. I have no idea why you are asking me to use WP:BKACDT in edit summaries, what is your reasoning for that request? --John B123 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
For "you" read "Dawnseeker2000". It's common for copyedit summaries to include shortlinks to relevant policies. I requested something similar in this case, to demonstrate that Dawnseeker2000's edits were a reflection of consensus policy rather than idiosyncratic personal preference. John B123 provided a relevant quote and I have added a shortlink to that. I suggest that instead of the unsupported assertion "access dates are not required for published books—and where date or year is already present" which Dawnseeker2000 is currently using in edit summaries some rewording linking to WP:BKACDT would be more persuasive to the likes of me and Martin of Sheffield. jnestorius(talk) 17:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I will consider using it. Thanks for making it. Dawnseeker2000 23:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hinckley AcademyEdit

Dearest Dawn, I hope you are well. This might sound weird, but I was captivated to see you, an independent contractor from Oregon, as the most recent editor of my school in the English Midlands' wikipedia page. The school in question is Hinckley Academy. I'd love for you to give me peace of mind, and fill me in on what you edited, your Link to the school or anything interesting related. All the best, Eamonn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamdin1 (talkcontribs) 22:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of JeyporeEdit


As I can observe you are a verified Wikipedia admin, therefore I’d like to request you to delete the page Kingdom of Jeypore which is carrying a lot of misinformation about the topic.

Some admins have locked the page and have been constantly adding and deleting sources from the page. JahangirMo7 (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

History of OceaniaEdit

Just curious, what was the purpose of the date format changes to History of Oceania. Is there an issue here or where they just redundant? ddmmall would be the normal date format for Oceania. Ex nihil (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Did the script do something wrong? Dawnseeker2000 18:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your script needs to be careful not to change quoted text.Edit

See this diff. --NSH001 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Charles Hamilton, 5th Earl of AbercornEdit

Dear Dawnseeker2000. Thank you very much for your recent edit on the article "Charles Hamilton, 5th Earl of Abercorn". I see you are an extremely experienced Wikipedian: almost 250,000 edits! I am impressed. Thank you very much for all the good corrections, especially the comma on the wrong side of the citation. However, you changed the title of the London Gazette from "Rye, August 8" to "Rye, 8 August". I suppose that is AWB's fault. I believe titles should be left alone. Please, be so kind as to reestablish the correct title or perhaps change the entire way how I cited the London Gazette. I am not sure at all about how that should best be done. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Yes sir, and you are right on all counts, except AWB being at fault. That was my fault. Thanks for bringing this here, and I'll restore the title as it was before I made any changes. I remember making the edit and since I'm only targeting articles that use the DMY date format, I remember being OK with changing the title. That was my justification anyway. Thanks again, Dawnseeker2000 13:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Dawnseeker2000. Thank you very much! Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixing dashesEdit

I came across this edit when reviewing some old edits of mine. In general I make similar changes; I even have AWB auto-edit the (nnnn-nnnn) pattern. It occasionally gets me in trouble (don't do that in filenames!). But I make an exception that I don't believe is covered in the MOS: if citing the title of an external document (usually a web-page) I prefer to follow its own punctuation. Thus this date range is clearly a hyphen, in both the text and the HTML title. Of course there will be dubious cases, especially images of in printed books. As you're interested in these details, thoughts? David Brooks (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @DavidBrooks: I recall that my initial approach for reference titles was as yours is: leave them alone. I followed that style for probably the first five years of editing, then had a change of thinking. I don't recall what it was specifically, but I realized that there wasn't a need to be too rigid in that area. A short time later, I started working with formatting dashes, and there's a good amount of work in date and title reference fields there. Upon using AWB for most of my editing, I also noticed that apostrophe's are also fixed as part of the default "typo fixing" detail, and of course the same rules were applied in reference parameters. So, I guess over time my thinking has changed to allow WP:MoS changes in that area. Take care, Dawnseeker2000 08:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
As David Brooks points out "there be dragons here". The Wikisource Dictionary of National Biography project uses dashes not ndashes in disambiguation dates. I made an edit using AWB to the article "Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton (Revision as of 16:44, 29 June 2020) as one of many fixing edits where editors had, without checking their edit, added an ndash to link to articles on Wikisource. I specifically added an in-text hidden comment "<!-- NB dash not ndash on wikisource-->". I did this precisely to warn people not to make the edit.
When you made this edit "Revision as of 17:01, 22 July 2020" you obviously did not read the in-text comment, or check the change in the link that you made. Please be more careful in future.
If you wish to change the appearance of the citation to DNB on Wikisource in a Wikipedia article then use the parameter |display= — as I did in my edit which changed the dash to be displayed as an ndash.
-- PBS (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not inexperienced with dashes. Have a good weekend. Dawnseeker2000 11:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@PBS: Those DNB links were clearly errors, but this isn't about them; it's about preserving the textually exact punctuation in a title on an external web page. Same applies to things like curly quotes: copy them, or use the MOS? Personally I'm not too exercised about it either way. I was querying an obviously experienced editor about conventions that might have a community consensus but not in the MOS.
Dawnseeker2000, do AWB typos fix curly apostrophes now? I must have been confused because have that in my find&replace list.
Also, thanks (PBS) for not citing one of the examples where I auto-changed the hyphen in a DNB link to ndash, and you fixed it. I've moved most of my AWB find-and-replacers to a C# module which can be smarter about such things :-) David Brooks (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Hello Internet podcast statusEdit

The podcast "Hello Internet" is on hiatus as of the 26th July, 2020 and I would like to have that reflected on the Wikipedia page which I cannot do as the page is locked to prevent vandalism. Kindly update the page accordingly to inform anyone looking to see the status of the podcast. Thank you. Regards, Tim. Punitdaga31 (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

For the Sid Roth Youtube Channel link, I assumed the bot incorrectly assumed it was a copyright violation (even though it was Sid Roth's YouTube channel. Am I wrong in that assumption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC) (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Don't assume anything around here, and communicate via the edit summary each time you make a change. The bot left you a message on your talk page. Dawnseeker2000 08:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


Re: this, I agree about books but it is wrong for news articles, which are often updated whilst retaining the original date-stamp. Searching Wayback etc can produce misleading results without an accessdate. I thought I saw a discussion about this somewhere recently but it must have been in a fairly obscure place because I am pretty sure a general RfC would come to the same conclusion. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Minor change in processEdit

Hi, I've noticed your extensive good work over recent months. I would ask for a minor change, and that is in relation to DEFAULTSORT. Until a few years ago MediaWiki category sorting was case sensitive (as far as the code went), and for this reason we put all DEFAULTSORTs into an extreme form of Title Case (including short words, prepositions, conjunctions, etc.) to implement English Wikipedia's preferred case insensitive sort.

It is no longer necessary to maintain this casing, as the MediaWiki code has changed to support case insensitive sorting. Conversely, of course, changing the existing DEFAULTSORT to lowercase certain words is of no benefit to Wikipedia. However it is useful to re-users of our content, who may be using either older MediaWiki installations, or different software, to have this sort-key available.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC).

Hebgen Lake EarthquakeEdit

You reverted my edit. It was just a small edit with the intention of being more readable. Earthquake Maestro (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I did. Both small and large edits can be in opposition to the manual of style. Which WP policy does my edit summary link to? Dawnseeker2000 23:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Asia - Heat of the Moment.oggEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Asia - Heat of the Moment.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

AWB re-ordering Short DescriptionEdit

While reviewing some of my recent edits, I noticed this change. I assume your moving hatnotes was automated by AWB. The current release ( has a genfix that results in short descriptions being bumped below hatnotes, violating MOS:ORDER. The AWB guys fixed the bug soon after releasing but still haven't issued a binary release in almost a year. I have my own copy but I do recommend bumping to latest source or at least version 12363 if you are able. If not, I can offer a binary of the current latest. Best wishes, David Brooks (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, TYVM, I've been wondering about that. Is the regex for genfixes posted anywhere? I really appreciate you letting me know. Dawnseeker2000 19:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
It's a bunch of dense code wired into the AWB logic. But after all these years I just noticed the option "Do not apply WP:MOS fixes". I don't know what it suppresses, but try it. Alternatively, if you trust my binary, there's a build from the latest official source (with the ordering fix) at!AtuCZY0YF4hGorc14ZPbYZEf69IHCw. David Brooks (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC) ETA: But it's better to use a fixed binary, because it will move the SD to the top if it is under hatnotes. It won't lift the SD if it is buried near the bottom of the article (it happens); for that you need a couple of lines of Module code - which I also have, of course :-) David Brooks (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@DavidBrooks: Thanks a ton for version 6102. You know, I have probably made hundreds of edits without having restored the headers to their proper location. I've realized over time that keeping my AWB settings simple has a lot of value, but even when making relatively minor changes, there's still a fair amount going on, and I think that is why little things get missed. I hadn't realized during our July conversation that you were an AWB power user. Thanks for the assist. Dawnseeker2000 17:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Houses of Lenana SchoolEdit

Hi Dawnseeker2000,

I hope this reaches you well. How would i go about reinstating the 'houses' of the Lenana School page? I was in Lenana School and these hhouses were inplace. I did the graphics for the house colors myself via Lenana school. I know who they were named after, but this section was deleted. I am new at this. Your help will be well appreciated.Changez84-88 10:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOjara (talkcontribs)

NBSPs in citations?Edit

Hi, your AWB edits are adding non-breaking spaces to citations (page numbers), I've never seen that before in over 12 years of editing and they are not shown at Help:Shortened footnotes. It appears to be a mistake or we can discuss it at the relevant talk page if you believe it is not a mistake. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, please provide a diff. Dawnseeker2000 15:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Rolls-Royce Griffon and Rolls-Royce Limited are two articles on my watchlist. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me interjecting here (I temporarily have this page on my watchlist) but it should be noted that the Footnotes module, which implements {{sfn}} and {{harv}}, renders |p=123 as p.&nbsp;123. So AWB's genfixes follow an authoritative model. David Brooks (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Templates do one thing, human editors manually adding citations longhand do another. It's going to get very tiresome adding citations if this is some kind of new policy. I've not seen any announcements of the change in any MOS or CITE pages. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This edit [6] did the same thing, it took me quite some time to correct it. You ignored my last visit here and carried on regardless, no apology, no acknowledgement of a problem. Bot operators are obliged to be especially careful, please reprogram it to avoid this problem or stop using automated edits. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


Just a heads up/request: please don't change &minus; to its equivalent literal character, especially in a (semi-)automated way. Editor preference varies, and keeping the named HTML entity helps verify that the correct character is being used, rather than an incorrect, but visually indistinguishable one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

You’re the best Wikipedia user!

Lilkitty200 (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Date formatEdit

Hi Dawnseeker, for years I have been putting in the date format template, and when I remember to, putting in the current month rather than cutting and pasting from some other article I have done. But I have always wondered, why do we put in a month and year? Presumably the instruction is timeless. I have no dog in this hunt; just curious. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Acad Ronin, the time stamp just let's editors know when the article was checked for compliance with date formats. I think there have been bots in the past that have processed articles for that very purpose, and when they did the audit, they'd change the month and year to current so that future bot runs wouldn't duplicate work. There has been a misconception that the date is the date that that date format was first used, but that would be a redundant way to go about it, since we have all versions of articles to view in case there's ever a dispute.
For the last year or so I have taken it upon myself to do quite a bit of date formatting work. The volume is quite high, but I've noticed that quite a few of the articles that are tagged with very old (nearly 10 years) date format templates have other issues as well and I'm having a grand ol time processing (ehem) tens of thousands of pages per month. That's where I run across lots of your ship articles. Dawnseeker2000 00:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Makes sense. I hope I am not giving you too much to do in terms of cleanup. As you probably know, after one has spent time working on an article one stops reading it in detail. The mind no longer sees typos. So thanks for the clean-up. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
No, no, no. That probably came out wrong. I was just saying that that is where I see your username quite a lot. I think with the ship articles, there's probably just hyphens being changed to endashes and whatnot. Not a whole lot of actual typo-fixing. Sorry! Dawnseeker2000 14:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia creatingEdit

Am pavan Acharya film actor and popular Telivision actor mainly works in Kannada film industry and Telivision industry I need to create Wikipedia page can you create and give my Wikipedia page Pavan acharya (actor)tvactor (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleted edit in Nanorobotics articleEdit

In the Nanorobotics article, you deleted my edit about Replicators from Stargate. I don't understand why, my edits are related to the topic and it's a cultural reference and therefore it's in the right section. Did you read it? Other references are not also sourced. Please explain. Andypos (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Journey - Lights.oggEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Journey - Lights.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaryEdit

This edit is not just "date format audit, minor formatting" as your edit summary said. You also removed a source- without a clear reason why. Is there a reason you removed that source- it supported the text in the sentence before it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Look again please. Dawnseeker2000 15:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
That's odd, the diff in source mode was telling me that you'd removed a source, but clearly you haven't (because it's still there). My apologies. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't sweat it. A lot of times things can appear to be what they are not. It's happened to me a million times here. Have a good day. Dawnseeker2000 15:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Bank/Monument stationEdit

Hi, I undid parts of your edits on Bank and Monument stations - as the City of London is widely referred to as the City (differentiated from the much larger "city of London" by capitalising City). Just in case you were unaware. Turini2 (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Dawnseeker2000 20:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


Thank you for all the corrections and improvements you have made to the article Water supply and sanitation in New Zealand. I have been progressively adding content to this article for a considerable period, and there is still much to do. However, I appreciate the improvements you have made, and I will try to learn from this and avoid some of the errors you picked up in my future work. Cheers Marshelec (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Earth, Wind & Fire, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spin and Cashbox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Vitold Belevitch and non-breaking spacesEdit

The point is, shortened footnotes are so short that it is impossible on most platforms (or at least difficult) to make the window so small that they start to line break on the page number space. But you have now removed the nbsps from the Publications and Bibliography sections also where nbsp actually do do something useful in a much longer full citation.

It amuses me that people are obsessive about putting nbsp into page numbers, but never bother about volume or issue numbers which have exactly the same problem. As I wrote the article, none of those entities had spaces at all (I won't defend that practice, I now realise it is not accepted) but it at least had the benefits of being consistent and impossible to break at an inappropriate place. Various editors have inserted spaces in the page numbers over the years, but have never bothered with the volume and issue numbers ending with a page that once had a consistent style, but now does not. SpinningSpark 14:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm not a non-breaking space pusher. They are not really the point; they just help in editing with AWB. My intention is to unify spacing between the p. or pp. and the page number(s), but when I make that change in AWB, the diff is difficult to see, and the nbsp helps me to identify and verify before saving. That's it. Dawnseeker2000 14:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Duplication in citesEdit

Why are you repeating BBC again in these edits? 1 and 2. Seems bizarre to have BBC followed by BBC Sport. You only need to use the work element. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I did not enter those reference details. All I'm doing with that particular AWB setting is removing top-level domains and adjusting what or who is the publisher and who/what is the work. Dawnseeker2000 16:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

I made the changes because the link to Tim Maddren's official website is broken and the ip cannot be found. I added links to his other external social media sites. Thank you, I will give explanations in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dywseow (talkcontribs) 13:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Tim Maddren ChangesEdit

I made the changes as the link to Tim Maddren's website was not working and the ip address cannot be found. Sorry for not adding an explanation. Will do so in the future. As the link to the website was not working I added links to his other Social Media sites that are working. Thanks again and sorry for the inconvenience.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dywseow (talkcontribs) 13:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I use [this] one for mos date. It seems to be having some technical issues, since it is not loading today. Could you tell me which script you use? -Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I'm having the same issues with some of my installed scripts. For the last year or so I have been editing primarily by AWB and I use Ohconfucius's AWB module to handle date formatting and some other stuff. Dawnseeker2000 14:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Tongue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gift of Gab.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Peter SchmeichelEdit

I understand you removing accessdates from published books, but why remove them from websites? They are useful for knowing when the page was seen in a particular state and when we would need to look in the Web Archive for that version if the page were ever to change. Would you mind restoring the accessdates to the cite web and cite news templates please? – PeeJay 16:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There you go. Have a great day, Dawnseeker2000 20:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

infobox errorEdit

F.Y.I, your edit here broke the infobox because this template requires a plain dash to specify an elevation range (you may have though you were fixing a date). I've fixed it. MB 01:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Dawnseeker2000 01:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Billy Joel - You May Be Right.oggEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Billy Joel - You May Be Right.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

1986 San Salvador earthquakeEdit

Hello user Dawnseeker2000 and I noticed that in the article San Salvador earthquake 1986 you have been deleting my editions even though I put reliable sources but in Spanish my question is why have you been deleting my editions even though the sources are reliable and are from my country El Salvador I just realized that you put it into a moderate event when my references say otherwise, by the way, wikipedia accepts any type of reference, whether it is in Spanish, English and another language. I'll wait for your answer. Thank you very much, have a good day. --Sibrianosv (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)sibriano sv

Hi. Are these your accounts?

Also, you cited Daniel Rucks on Twitter. Is he an authority on earthquakes? Dawnseeker2000 23:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Rucks is a famous Salvadoran broadcaster who for a moment worked in the Ministry of the Environment in El Salvador so that's why I decided to put it on --Sibrianosv (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) sibrianosv

OK, famous broadcasters are not appropriate sources for any type of earthquake parameters. Sorry. Dawnseeker2000 00:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I had cited these and other pages because in other earthquake pages they not only put references to earthquake pages but to news websites etc I also cited Daniel Rucks because before he was an announcer he worked in the Ministry of the Environment of El Salvador, which studied the effects of this earthquake, in addition to all the pages that I cited are based on information from the Ministry of the Environment of El Salvador..--Sibrianosv (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)sibrianosv

It's OK to use news outlets for citing the effects (if no authoritative source exists) but since there are lots of authorities on earthquake parameters (magnitude, depth, intensity, etc.) we use those instead. The global earthquake authorities all have this event in the magnitude 5.5 range (ish). Many of these sources are present in the article as we speak, and they are in agreement that this was a moderate (magnitude-wise) event. To say that it was a very large event (above magnitude 7) is crazy. I don't know how else to put it. Dawnseeker2000 21:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ark Tribe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Advertiser.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Voice communicationEdit

(Apologies for not noticing I was not on your talk page.)

Strange that people are declining to talk with you by phone, given that it's higher bandwidth, lower latency, and a medium more conducive to empathy. If more people were making that request it would be understandable but it's very rare. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for for the delayed response, Vaughan Pratt. I'm pretty sure it just comes down to trust. People are just wary on this website because there is so much trolling and other nonsense. Fear of giving away a phone number in this day and age is probably the reason for folks not wanting to communicate like that. If we had a built-in voice system, or if we partnered with a service that offered that kind of utility, that would (for me) make things a whole lot easier. You can be disarming far easier with your voice that you can with your fingers, for example. Dawnseeker2000 06:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dead Boss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A question about updating datesEdit

Hello Dawnseeker,

First let me say that when I occasionally see your edits, I very much enjoy looking through them because invariably they are so well-founded. All power to your elbow (or keyboard)!

I was interested to see a few instances in which you have updated the dates for "Use dmy dates" to the current year, and would be interested to know your thinking on this. Genuine question. :-) Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 04:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the template date parameter is there to let editors and bots know when dates were audited. There is confusion about its use; the idea that the date is presented as when the specified format was first introduced is false. Its use is documented on the template: Template:Use dmy dates. I got started on this after seeing the large numbers of articles that had not been audited in nine to ten years. Thanks for asking, Dawnseeker2000 05:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks! SCHolar44 (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

access-date againEdit

I have changed the target of WP:BKACDT since it seems you are using it to justify changes not just for {{cite book}} to Google Books but rather for a much wider spread of CS1 cites, whose selection criteria is unclear to me. Note that the general advice in Help:Citation Style 1#Access date is different from the book-specific advice:

For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book, but should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium).

For example, in this edit the access dates should not have been removed for the cites with each of the following URLs:

jnestorius(talk) 12:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


Hi. Please don't make changes like this with AWB. Please read WP:AWBRULES - point #4 gives the details. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you talking about? And even if you were correct in that there's no "noticeable effect", what is the point in reverting please?
The change I'm making removes the space in linked and non-linked entries: ESPN Cricinfo → ESPNcricinfo
Is this a problem or is it just a perceived problem? The reverting seems like it must be the latter. Dawnseeker2000 16:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty clear from the link to WP:AWBRULES, so I'll spell it out for you - "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits". All of these edits are insignificant and inconsequential. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
No. There's a visible change. Please don't leave these kinds of messages here. If you feel a need to go around and play whack-a-mole with experienced editors, go see about Rich Farmborough. He is an editor that does make inconsequential edits with AWB (one's with no visible change). Dawnseeker2000 17:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad editEdit

F.Y.I, in this edit, you added "df=y" to {{birth year and age}} which is used with only "years", not complete dates so there is no "df" parameter. MB 18:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Dawnseeker2000 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Marc LedermanEdit

hello i undid your long-standing vandalism to Jean-Marc Lederman. on the one hand, it's impressive that it remained in that condition for so long, but on the other hand vandalism to biographies of living people is rude af imo. (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A-League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Advertiser.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Claud Hamilton, 2nd Baron Hamilton of StrabaneEdit

Dear Dawnseeker. Thank you very much for your recent edits on the article Claud Hamilton, 2nd Baron Hamilton of Strabane. Most of them correct stupid mistakes that I introduced, and your AWB corrections are spot-on. I think you are doing a great job and by-the-way approaching 300,000 edits! However, there are two edits in the article that I wonder about.

The one is Line 102, in the paragraph starting with "#Margaret". This is an entry in a list of the sisters of Claud Hamilton, the subject of the article. You removed a trailing semicolon at the end of the entry after the citation and added it on before the citation. However, there was already a period in this place. Now we have a period followed by a semicolon. That does not look right. Perhaps my entire way of punctuating lists might be wrong, but that is perhaps not the issue here.

The other is Line 151, in the paragraph starting with "|{{age|1605|27 Mar 1625}}". This is an entry in the timeline about the accession of King Charles I. This entry ends with a citation that includes a quotation from a source. You corrected the date format that appears in that quotation according to MOS:DATE. However, I do not think that MOS:DATE applies to quotations. I hope you agree. This edit is due to a bug in AWB genfixes, which was logged on 28 Oct 2019 under number T236729 "Genfixes removes comma from quoted date" in Phabricator by User:Tom.Reding (its status is still "Open, Needs Triage"). Please re-establish the date format as in the cited source.

Besides, I like your user page and what you say about editing. With many thanks and greeting Johannes Schade (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Sorry for the delay. I will respond to this a little later today. Dawnseeker2000 16:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much Johannes Schade for you patience about these error corrections. Those two instances were changes that I should have reversed. Dawnseeker2000 15:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It is a pleasure to work with you! Thanks and best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

James Hamilton, 7th Earl of AbercornEdit

Dear Dawnseeker2000. Sorry to bother you again. This is about a different article: James Hamilton, 7th Earl of Abercorn. As before, almost all of your edits are needed to correct stupid mistakes that I introduced, and most of your corrections are, as usually, spot-on. Thank you so very much! I think you are doing a great job and have an amazing edit count! However, there are a few among your corrections in the article that I do not understand. This might, however be due to my lack of experience that I beg you to excuse.

There are four edits, all in the article's (biographic) timeline, marked Line 159 and Line 165 in the diff, that concern accession dates of monarchs and cite dates from Smyth (1839), which are quoted in the citations. You corrected the dates appearing in the quotations according to MOS:DATE. However, I would not have thought that MOS:DATE applies to quotations. I hope you agree. In my humble opinion, these edits are due to a bug in AWB Genfixes, that was logged on 28 Oct 2019 as T236729 "Genfixes removes comma from quoted date" by the eminent User:Tom.Reding in Phabricator (its status is still "Open, Needs Triage", not going to be fixed soon). Please, if you agree, kindly re-establish the dates as they appear in the cited source. With many thanks!

There is another group of edits you made, all in the article's References section, in which you replaced the "date" parameter of the "cite book" templates with the "year" parameter. I looked up the template documentation, which seems to discourage the use of the "year" parameter in that template. I would believe the "year" parameter is mainly intended for use in the "cite journal" template. If you agree, please kindly revert these edits. However, I might misinterpret the documentation; you are a far, far more experienced user than I am.

With many thanks for your patience. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I've reverted the date changes and the "year" parameter changes on this article as well. I will have to keep a closer eye on what's going on. As for the year parameter, I am also unsure of whether it's considered more appropriate in one reference template or another. Thanks for letting me know about these issues. Have a great week, Dawnseeker2000 18:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of LondonderryEdit

Dear Dawnseeker2000. Thank you for the recent improvements you made on the article Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry. They are very much appreciated! Sorry to bother you again about a collateral damage. The article comprises a "Family tree", implemented as a "Tree chart" in which a variable called S-F is used to stand for "Sarah Frances Seymour". You (probably your AWB) changed S-F (hyphen) to S–F (n-dash) in the line where the variable name is used but not in the line where the variable name is initialised. The Family tree therefore now shows "S–F" instead of "Sarah Frances Seymour". I do not think there is any good reason to change hyphens to dashes in variable names inside a chart. Please repair urgently. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about those arrangements. Thanks for letting me know. I found another date where I removed a comma that should have stayed as-is also. Dawnseeker2000 10:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear Dawnseeker2000. Thanks for the fix. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Voice communicationsEdit

Hello Dawnseeker2000,

I'd like to talk to you about an older article of yours and I noticed that you mentioned that you prefer voice communication over text. If that is still the case, what would be the best way for me to proceed? Anything would be fine for me btw.

Best regards, Lifeincabo (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for asking. Having issues with my microphone, so we can go ahead and just type it out here. Dawnseeker2000 15:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you be okay with email? It's nothing terrible or anything but the article is about me and I just had a question or two for you. If that's okay, I can send you a message but, if not, I understand that too. Lifeincabo (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know what you're thinking by using the "email this user" function listed in the tools section. Dawnseeker2000 01:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

< sup >2</ sup > or ²Edit

Hello, why preferring < sup >2</ sup > to ², in proper Unicode subscripts and superscripts?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it's not my design/script. Gimme a bit to find the origin. Dawnseeker2000 11:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
My first thought was that it was a genfix, but I've got those turned off and the change was just suggested on another article. My next thought is that it could be embedded in DavidBrooks' AWB build. I'm going to hold off asking him so I can exhaust other possibilities. Dawnseeker2000 11:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, silly me. It's part of typo-fixing. I think what we're looking for is here: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#SI_unit_symbols Dawnseeker2000 11:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Should we ask people there ?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey @Chris the speller:, we're wondering about the typo-fixing rule that replaces Unicode characters with superscript characters with this rule:
<Typo word="squared" find="\b([ck]?m|mi)²" replace="$1<sup>2</sup>"/>"/>
Just looking for some background on the formatting choice. Otherwise, we're succumbled. (I had to 😉) Dawnseeker2000 14:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The guidance is in MOS:UNITSYMBOLS – "Format exponents using <sup>, not special characters." Chris the speller yack 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Alright thanks. Sorry to bother you. Dawnseeker2000 00:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I followed up in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Exponents characters.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yemen earthquake and flagrant abuse of rollbackEdit

If you use rollback like that again I will see you at ANI. Also, the facts are NOT verifiable. Prove it to me, how do I verify the magnitude and geographical location of the earthquake from the link provided? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, but see your talk page first for my comments. Dawnseeker2000 09:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
You're talking nonsense. I couldn't give a damn who "wrote" the article and in absolutely NO WAY WHATSOEVER does adding "failed verification" equate to asserting that someone is a liar. This is pure hyperbole. But abuse rollback again and you'll lose it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
And answer the question: prove it the facts are true. I can't. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Trust is key around here. Don't be a dick please. Dawnseeker2000 09:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Our readers should be able to verify the facts. You're not helping them do that. Stop personalising this issue. Get on and fix the issue. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Just as a final comment for those interested: the website that's being discussed here is not complicated to use and I don't see any issue that needs fixing. Dawnseeker2000 10:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note about script usageEdit

Note that this edit destroyed the bottom half of the article. --Muhandes (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It sure did. Not sure where that bit came from, but thank you very much for pointing that out. I'll take a trout if you've got one. Dawnseeker2000 15:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)



Here you go sir. Don't let it be said that I refused a trout to a man in need. (and I agree, this is the best.) --Muhandes (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

yyyy-mm-dd dates replacementEdit

Hello, can you please enlighten me why this edit was made? Visually nothing changed, because with the "use dmy dates" all the dates in references in yyyy-mm-dd format were converted to dmy format. The already big page is just 2,500+ bytes bigger with no added value. All the dates were in the same allowed format. FromCzech (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the intention was not to add unnecessary bulk to the page. Dawnseeker2000 08:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Charles Dillon, 14th Viscount DillonEdit

Dear Dawnseeker2000. This concerns corrections you made on the article Charles Dillon, 14th Viscount Dillon on 6:54 17 January 2021. I suppose you have a good understanding of what is correct or best usage in their regard. I am most eager to learn about two of them: (1) &nbsp; in dates and (2) |year= vs. |date= in citation templates. — (1) You corrected "9&nbsp;August 2020" -> "9 August 2020". I thought non-breaking spaces were recommended between the number and the month. I learned this when Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty was copy-edited by User:Twofingered Typist, Master Editor and member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 20 April 2020. However, I cannot find such a rule in MOS, which only seems to give examples where dates are formatted in that way (in MOS:DATERANGE). — (2) You corrected "|date=1949" -> "|year=1949". I always used "|date=" rather than "|year=" when citing books because template:Cite book and template:Citation state under "Year": "Year of source being referenced. The usage of this parameter is discouraged". I am not so sure any more because recently I discovered that entering a year of publication in the Visual Editor generates a Cite book template with the "|year=" parameter. Perhaps that overrides. I wonder. I would like to hear your esteemed opinion. With best regards and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Johannes Schade It appears that Dawnseeker2000 used a script that prompted the corrections. The use of a non-breaking space in the date (and many other instances) is perfectly acceptable—FA reviewers often demand it. This prevents breaks in text on a screen that can confuse the reader. Having a break between 25 at the end of one line and August on the next or 100 and then km on the next is a more common problem now that people are using their phones to read WP. Removing these none-breaking spaces was unnecessary imo and did not improve the article in any way. I think this is an instance where the MOS has not caught up with technology. I use it as a matter of choice where I think it makes sense. That is not grounds to revert when it is not expressly forbidden in the MOS.
The "year" field does appear in the Citebook template with the caveat you point out. Yet in citations created with ProveIt the comment by the "date" field is to use it if you know the day and month of publication as well. I have no idea what's going on. Another MOS contradiction?? Personally, I would use "year".
Hope this helps. 13:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)