User talk:Dawnseeker2000#Date formats

File:Information.svg A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:Starship - We Built This City.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Following are tagged as proposals for deletion:

• :File:Tiesto - Adagio for Strings.ogg
• :File:Corey Hart - Never Surrender.ogg
• :File:Hall & Oates - Out of Touch.ogg

If left uncontested for at least seven days, the files above will be deleted. George Ho (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello {{PAGENAME}}, This is to let you know that {{#if:1268885647|one of your recent edit|one of your recent edit}} at Arfajah caused a citation error. {{#if:|you have added invalid url at {{Tl|{{{cite_format}}}}} template.}}

{{#if:|Your url input was {{{ogurl}}}}}

Do not add invalid url and use preview before saving your edit. Happy editing.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello {{PAGENAME}}, This is to let you know that {{#if:1268875994|one of your recent edit|one of your recent edit}} at Water supply and sanitation in Iran caused a citation error. {{#if:|you have added invalid url at {{Tl|{{{cite_format}}}}} template.}}

{{#if:|Your url input was {{{ogurl}}}}}

Do not add invalid url and use preview before saving your edit. Happy editing.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Can please help me check if this is a reliable reference for a new Wikipedia article Madambola (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading :File:Doran - Monuments cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International School of Engineering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Applied engineering.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bands from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• While I was trying to complete the article, someone has continuously deleted and removed, making me very tired. I hope you calmly help me have time to make it better. If I break your house, do you feel happy? I have explained a lot that I am tired and weak and forced to use the phone, but it seems that you don't care and always preserve certain discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:800:3D54:32EC:56A8:B5A6:7F2A:9C1E (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dawnseeker2000, great work on the date audit and general article cleanup, but note that your edits for overlink/geolink are sometimes going too far – e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hartcliffe&diff=1274315079&oldid=1266410624], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henbury%2C_Bristol&diff=1274315363&oldid=1260214608], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horfield&diff=1274316295&oldid=1261324118] removed all geolinks from the intro, and all links to the city (which is definitely not well-known enough to fall under the overlink guidance's "common terms"!). Also, the geolinks guidance states that it doesn't apply to infoboxes, and in these cases the edits contradict guidance on that infobox template that those fields should be links. I've corrected those ones, but this might apply to other articles you've been cleaning up. Thanks, Joe D (t) 20:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi and thanks for the input, though to say that removing links to Bristol is an error is correct in terms of the items that I mention in my edit summary, which, as you saw, reads "date format audit, refine ref details, link maintenance (linked miscapitalizations, WP:OVERLINK, WP:GEOLINK, unlink common terms)".{{pb}}As you're aware, WP:OVERLINK talks about settlements, and my approach to this has been to not include obscure (or just plain small/tiny) locations. With that in mind, we're talking about one of the world's most easily recognizable countries. Continuing on with that, Bristol is not exactly an unknown settlement either.{{pb}}So, if you're truly set in your approach, and I realize that texting may not necessarily be the best venue for this kind of conversation, I think we are probably going to disagree, at least partially, about what's going on. Do you want me to remove Bristol from my settings file based on the idea that it's a relatively unknown city in England and/or the world? Dawnseeker2000 20:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::Overlink says "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article..." In these cases, the articles were about suburbs of the city of Bristol, therefore the term is extremely relevant to the content of the article and it is not an overlink. Overlink also says "Be conscious of your own demographic biases" – the fact that Bristol is well known within England doesn't make it an overlink.

::Are you saying that you are automatically deleting all links to a whole list of articles without first checking whether such link removals are appropriate to the context? Joe D (t) 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Brother, I'd appreciate it if you didn't underestimate me. With that, I'm a little closer to being done with this conversation. Dawnseeker2000 21:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:One more question: does the template documentation override overlink/geolink? Dawnseeker2000 20:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Forgive me for peppering you with these extra replies, but I chose to send off a response rather than working on a draft. I wanted to mention the philosophy of how I'm approaching this task. If, for example, there was a similar-sized community in the global south, I'd probably avoid it, and to continue on with what I've already mentioned, and I'll remove Bristol if you insist, but cites in England are pretty recognizable for readers of encyclopedias. I'm avoiding removing links to similar sized cities in African countries, as well as those in Southeast Asia, etc. If you take a step back and consider locations on a global scale, Bristol is a recognizable city in one of the worlds most prominent countries. Dawnseeker2000 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toward_the_South_of_California&redirect=no Toward the South of California] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 23#Toward the South of California}} until a consensus is reached. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

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

:Desmond Rebellions

::added a link pointing to Valentine Browne

:Donal IV O'Donovan

::added a link pointing to Edward Scott

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dawnseeker,

I see that on the WP article for the 1978 Tabas earthquake the type is listed as dip-slip. However, this paper (https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/69/6/1861/117950/Earthquake-faulting-and-bedding-thrust-associated?redirectedFrom=fulltext) "discontinuous thrust faulting" and others (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169555X13001037) "blind thrust fault", and a USGS source (although preliminary) (https://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/Iran_Tabas_PrelimReport_Nov78.pdf) "exhibiting thrust fault character" say thrust fault. Should I change it to be more specific, as a thrust fault is a type of dip-slip fault per https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-a-fault-and-what-are-different-types? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, please change it to something more specific, as the current source for dip-slip is a catalog, and it's probably preferable to be sourcing a study in this case. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 06:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Also another question, I'm not sure how to read the catalog for the death range properly. Where does it say 15k-25k? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, the PAGER-CAT source, as you may have seen, is a compilation of catalogs, and sometimes they have a "comments" column. In this case, I took the lower figure of 15,000 from the Utsu comments column (CN), where it gives a range of 15K on the low end to "more than 20k" on the high end. The EM-DAT catalog (column CT) gives a figure of 25,000 for the high end. So that's where I got those figures. Dawnseeker2000 20:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button File:OOjs UI icon signature-ltr.svg located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, Dawnseeker2000,

:Just a reminder, please sign all comments on talk pages, discussions or noticeboards. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Please do not de-link cities. Countries are fine to de-link. GiantSnowman 18:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:Unlinking cities is fine; it's within the MoS. Dawnseeker2000 20:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::No, it's not. Please stop. GiantSnowman 18:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure it is, and the current bit of applicable text at {{sectionlink|Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking|What_generally_should_not_be_linked}}. There have been plenty of discussions around the topic of linking city names on the talk page archives. Mainly editors are looking for clarity about how to manage links; some support and some don't.{{pb}}I found one RFC from early 2017 (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 132#RFC: Definition of WP:OVERLINK, indent two) that had a snow close. It was brought about by a very new editor, with some closing text reading {{green|"the definition of excessive links is itself fuzzy, subject to many fuzzy factors and editorial judgement. Any concrete ideas for clarifying the language should be suggested on the guideline's talk page"}}, then some months later, SMcCandlish expanded and improved the definition, which was not challenged.{{pb}}If you'd like to post at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking, I'll join you there, but as with a lot of those discussions, consensus can be difficult to establish. Dawnseeker2000 23:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page :Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1280715476%7CShoot-to-kill%20policy%20in%20Northern%20Ireland%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Dawnseeker2000§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1280715476 report it to my operator].

Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You downcased "On" to "on" where it's part of a phrasal verb [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Barron&diff=prev&oldid=1280210978 here]. Watch out for such. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to GA 1992 Flores earthquake and tsunami and am confused on how to read the ISC data for earthquakes. Where would you find the ISC number for magnitude? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Are you looking at the online bulletin or the ISC-GEM spreadsheet? Dawnseeker2000 21:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::The ISC-GEM spreadsheet. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::OK, there's a lot of metadata details in the top area, but look for the row headers in row 110 for version 11.0 of the catalog. Once you find it, move that row to the top of the view then use the "freeze panes" feature to lock it in place. From there, the Mw figure is in column "K". Dawnseeker2000 23:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I noticed your account making a tonne of edits supposedly correcting grammar mistakes on this page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Irish_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=1282528035 royal society Ireland]) but it removed the Capitalization of "A" to denote the Academy. We are referring to the proper name hence forth and thus need it to be "Academy". It also removed links to the Irish language (Library seection) so anyone could mistake it for "Language" in general instead of the Irish Language. The link to Dublin has been removed even though It is the capital of Ireland and of significance to the article.

And this is just one page... your bot edits up to 10 ARTICLES every minute. U+12399 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Agree, such apparent bot behaviour in this case is disruptive and the problem is it makes some good corrections as well as bad. Another very poor choice was with removing the links in North-South - there are plenty of English readers who would not have a clue on what this meant unless they have strong Irish connections. Can the community ask you to correct your errors on that page yourself rather than expect others to do a manual reversion and consider removing or having better manual triggers for certain functionality. ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::While asking is ideally the best and most polite way forward, can the experienced Wikipedians not block him on a temporary basis? I'm new here, but already starting to discover so many headaches... U+12399 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hey ChaseKiwi, we assume readers have basic knowledge and I think it's fair to say that most people know about Ireland and Northern Ireland. That specific link that I modified South appeared 10 times in the database prior to my removing that one instance. I'd say that it's probably not the best arrangement in terms of the display text. We don't really think of Ireland as South Ireland.{{pb}}Anyway, after I made the "problematic" edit to the article, KerryCommon came in and added a link to all-Ireland prior to where the removed link was, so now the reader has some context. Also, I made an additional change to some of the over-capitalization in that article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Irish_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=1285416242] Dawnseeker2000 17:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi U+12399. I make each one of these edits myself and I am not a bot, and yes, at the time you looked at my series of edits I was working on articles with a max size of 7,500 bytes; it's very quick to make rapid edits on articles of this size. Dawnseeker2000 17:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I honestly don't believe that you do not have a script running. You're saying its perfectly human behaviour to edit 22 articles in the past 7 mins? On and On your list of contributions goes... Sure you use AWB but I dont think you're checking the results dude.

::Sure if you're only making quick edits how will you know if you are making a legit correction? As you said, it was only after, did KerryCommon come in to correct your edit, not you. So you havent noticed it until Chasekiwi pointed it out and your trying to fallback on some legitimacy.

::You still haven't fixed the Academy (capitalization of A).

::This is chaotic! U+12399 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deepak Khadka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see MOS:GEOLINK, "For a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit" i.e. we link the city but not the country. I do not know why you continue to edit disruptively. Do I need to seek escalation at ANI? GiantSnowman 18:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GiantSnowman 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is back at ANI, by the way. GiantSnowman 18:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I closed the discussion. Like I said in the closing statement, I think it's very likely you'll be able to appeal the partial block. My best read on that discussion was that it was not helping to get you to that point. I hope you are able to talk this through in real life or Discord, and if discussing it in writing here helps, I'm happy to keep discussing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tatyana Solomatina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:You need to respond to the concerns brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dawnseeker2000, again.

::I'm not going to call you. You shouldn't be handing out your phone number to strangers on the internet. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 02:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You guys aren't strangers. You're trusted members of this community. I'm sure that's fine. If you're fearful, just say so. Dawnseeker2000 02:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not that I'm fearful it's that there have been admins and other uses that should have never been trusted at all. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|reason=I'm not quite ready to pursue looking into changing the MoS on this, so I'll not be removing any links to municipalities, states, or countries. I've got a number of other tasks that I can be doing. Dawnseeker2000 03:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)|decline=This doesn't address the stated reason for the block, which is a failure to communicate. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed |1=I communicated in the AN/I discussion and I'll continue to communicate in the future. Dawnseeker2000 12:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC) |accept = Unblocked by CBW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:: {{yo|CambridgeBayWeather}} I'm inclined to unblock but wanted to check with you. The assurance given in the last unblock request is the exact thing the ANI folks wanted, and D2000 definitely communicated, though imperfectly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As long as you are happy with their assurances. I'm fine with it. I'll do it now. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Unblocked now. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Watford_Borough_Council_election&diff=prev&oldid=1290725423 Removing the link for Watford

:::::That was faster than I'd have expected. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Please don't post here any more. Your comments yesterday sounded angry and I was pretty certain that you did not fully understand the situation. With today's comment, I'm now confident that you lack the experience to be commenting in situations like these. Your actions seem a bit predatory, and that, for me, is a red flag. So this is it for us, alright? Dawnseeker2000 23:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've had a look at the conversation and there's nothing in Miles' comments that sounds angry. Like he and Bushranger said, there's nothing complicated here. You're making edits with AWB that are controversial, and that's against AWB's rules. End of story. Does your ANI thread need re-opened? Stop doing these edits. Will ping @The Bushranger, @CambridgeBayWeather and @Firefangledfeathers to see what they think. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: D2000's edit was technically correct per MOS:BOLDLINK (FYI, {{u|JCW555}}). It doesn't matter. The community has to be able to trust that you'll do what you say you'll do, and the unblock was contingent on a promise that you've broken. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Ah OK. Thanks for that FFF. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Dawnseeker2000, the only person who {{tqq|did not fully understand the situation}} in that ANI thread was you. The only confusion regarding the situation was yours, which - speaking frankly - strikes me as having been confusion that you weren't simply allowed to do whatever you wanted. Above in your unblock requests you say {{tqq|I'll not be removing any links to municipalities, states, or countries}}, and yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Watford_Borough_Council_election&diff=prev&oldid=1290725423 you have] since being unblocked. Your comments to Miles above are also violations of WP:CIVIL - {{tqq|you lack the experience to be commenting in situations like these}} is casting aspersions, while {{tqq|Your actions seem a bit predatory}} is a straight-up personal attack. Either you're willfully misrepresenting other peoples' comments in response to you, or your comments are honest in which case you aren't suited for operation in a collaborative environment. Either way, this stops, now. You will not remove further links using AWB without acquiring explicit consensus first, and you will stop misrepresenting other editors' comments in violation of Wikipedia's civility policy, or you will be indefinitely and fully blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed |1=Brother, calm down. The edit to 2008 Watford Borough Council election indeed removed a link in the title of the article, but you should definitely read WP:BOLDAVOID. In other words, I am continuing to follow the manual of style and yet you're still being hostile. Why are you angry about this edit? Dawnseeker2000 23:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC) |decline = You were unblocked contingent on not removing any links to municipalities, states, or countries. You did, using AWB against the rules of AWB and when it was reverted, you began an edit war. It doesn't matter that your edit was correct by MOS, it was incorrect by your unblock conditions, and that's why you're re-blocked. My comment above stands: if this behavior resumes when your block expires, you will be facing an indefinite block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Today's edit was not an AWB rule violation. It's within the manual of style. I can't simply unlearn what I've learned over 18 years of editing. I unlinked it because of the bold avoid entry in the MoS. You're saying that if at any time in the future I follow bold avoid you're going to block me? Do you see how that seems extreme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnseeker2000 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wonder what the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention would say about this block. If you guys enforce this this way, I"m not sure how I can continue contributing. It was a good edit. Are there any reasonalbe administrators that want to take a step forward and say "you know, I think we may have gone too for with this one"? Dawnseeker2000 00:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Your removal of links to municipalities, states, or countries is controversial. AWB is not to be used for controversial edits. Your previous edits, which were controversial, were also, by your claim, made to follow MOS. Even if we leave that aside, however, and agree that this was not in violation of AWB rules, it was absolutely in violation of your unblock conditions, where you agreed to {{tqq|not be removing any links to municipalities, states, or countries}}. This does not matter if it's using AWB or manually - you agreed not to do this, you were unblocked, and then you proceeded to do it again, and began an edit-war in the process - the fact it was compliant with MOS is irrelevant because it violated your unblock conditions. Once the community has regained trust in you then you can make these kinds of edits in the future. Right now? Yes, if you {{tqq|follow bold avoid}}, then you'll be blocked, because you agreed not to remove these links to be unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't like blocking for a correct edit. I do take very seriously the possibility that I may have gone too far. I'm sorry—truly, genuinely, that's how I feel—to say that I think this was the minimum sanction necessary to prevent misconduct. I imagine it feels bizarre to have been blocked for an objectively correct edit; believe me, it feels bizarre on this end of the button.

::I'm coming from a place of a strong desire to retain an excellent, committed, experienced volunteer. I closed the ANI discussion because I worried it would continue to harm our chances of keeping you. Here's my pitch now: there is probably a part of you that wants to stand up for your principles and a part of you that knows to pick your battles. I'd like to appeal to the latter. There's nothing to be gained from this battle at this moment. There are plenty of other uncontroversial, useful edits to be made. Even BOLDAVOID edits are fair game as long as they don't involve geographical units. A page like 2020 Dally M Awards needs a link removed.

::I'm a fan of your work, and I really hope you stick around. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll second what Firefangledfeathers has to say. I would suggest that you edit for a while without using AWB. It will make the temptation not to remove links the same way. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 02:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed with both of the above. We do want you around, and you can become a valued and valuable contributor. Sometimes there's bumps along the road to there, but getting through them is worth it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

In order to follow the normal editing process, it'll be necessary to unlink some of these municipalities, like yesterday's edit where I removed a link in a bolded title in accordance with WP:BOLDAVOID. The issue that led to the first and second AN/I discussions was the mass targeted removal of links in relatively high speed fashion using AWB.

After my initial block expired, I closed that settings file that I had been using to target those links and used another generic file that allows me to target the some of the oldest articles on WP that haven't had a date format audit in 11-ish years. That's when I came across the 2008_Watford_Borough_Council_election article where I manually removed the link to Watford.

Instead of having the absurd restriction of not removing any links to municipalities, which could restrict me from making correct edits and be blocked for them in the future, let's modify the conditions to not remove links en masse via AWB. That may be where some of the confusion comes from. Again, I have set aside the settings file that has a sole purpose of removing and modifying links to municipalities and used a generic one, along with common sense and following years of experience and the manual of style to improve an article.

To be clear, being blocked for that is punitive and, as Firefangledfeathers mentioned above "I imagine it feels bizarre to have been blocked for an objectively correct edit; believe me, it feels bizarre on this end of the button". So why do that to a prolifically-experienced editor?

So let's modify the restriction from the generic "I will not unlink municipalities" to "I will not remove links to municipalities en masse via AWB". Also, there's an obvious error in my initial unblock request that everyone seems to have overlooked. I mentioned countries as well. Countries are fine to unlink, according to GiantSnowman's interpretation of the MoS. Dawnseeker2000 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:The countries bit is fine. The rest...your editing doesn't establish that you are, AWB or not, removing only "commonly, widely-known" links to municipalities. (Indeed, as I mentioned in the original thread of this, suggesting that even very broadly "known" ones are widely known enough to not need linking could be seen as a subtle form of systemic bias.) Also your comments suggest you have some thing about making {{tqq|correct edits}}. Any edit that is within policy is "correct", but edits that don't conform to the letter of the MOS are not necessarily incorrect, especially when that section of the MOS is controversial. What I would suggest is that you not remove any links to municipalities or states until consensus is established which part of the MOS that apparently conflicts should have priority. Also, to clarify: the block was not punitive. {{tqq|why do that to a prolifically-experienced editor?}} Because you were unblocked on a voluntary condition. You violated that condition immdiately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Please don't comment here any more. Your style is uhelpful and I consider your comments administrative overreach and narcissistic abuse. Dawnseeker2000 22:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::From what I see you are concentrating on MOS:BOLDLINK but not reading other sections on that page. Look at some of the other sections on that page, especially MOS:BOLDAVOID. That will enable you to continue editing, although not with AWB, without being blocked and avoiding the way the links are made in opposition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. By the way {{u|The Bushranger}} was not overreaching nor being narcissistic but have the best interests of the encyclopedia. But no I don't agree to manually removing links to municipalities and regions that may or may not be broadly known. As I already pointed out you unlinked Odisha and Haryana which are probably not that common. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)