User talk:Davidcannon/archive/AWB

User:Mercurywoodrose

Hi, David. Do you know if Mercurywoodrose (talk · contribs) wishes to have their userpage corrected to publication standards? Because if you don't know, you shouldn't do it. (People "correct" Bishzilla's grammar on her page sometimes. She doesn't care for it.) Bishonen | talk 13:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC).

• Thank you for the heads-up, Bishonen. I will take note:-)

David, why are you "fixing" things like this, which are WP:NOTBROKEN? And in userspace from an old research project, no less? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry. I was using AWB to bypass redirects, but will be more careful from now on to exclude user pages. David Cannon (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Should you be using AWB to bypass redirects at all? NOTBROKEN directly says not to bypass redirects unless you are making other, i.e., important, changes to the page at the same time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I see. I've been doing it because as a user I get irritated when I open a page which has been redirected from something else — to my eyes that looks unprofessional. But thank you for bringing this matter to my attention — I wasn't previously aware of this policy (I was away for a long time). And once again, I apologise for intruding on your user space —I didn't mean to do that, and will take care not to do it again. David Cannon (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Why are you still doing it now that WP:NOTBROKEN has been pointed out to you? - htonl (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
          • In the next few days, I'll be writing something on the policy's talk page. I've read the policy; it reads like a recommendation, not a rule. I understand why certain people wish to leave the redirects as they are, but I think there are good reasons for bypassing many of them (not all of them). Here's my main one: If you click on "What links here", as I often do, it's desirable to be presented with a nice, alphabetical list. Instead, if an article has a large number of redirects (e.g. Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin (no longer such a good illustration, as I've cleaned it up to a large extent), what you get is a hodge-podge of articles and redirect pages, with articles pointing to them. This is NOT user-friendly! As a researcher, I really dislike that, and I know I'm not the only one. SO I think bypassing redirects is a good thing, in general. Others were right to be upset that I edited their user pages —I'm trying to take extra care not to now, and on the odd occasion when I've slipped up today, I've reverted myself. But I don't see why you have an issue with my doing it in article space. Even if you think it's a complete waste of time, well, I'm wasting my own time, not yours. On the other hand, I'm taking care NOT to bypass redirects that could be turned into articles. I know what I'm doing here — nearly all of my redirecting work is with articles that I have had quite a bit to do with, so I do know which ones are likely to be turned into articles and which ones are not. As I said, I'll be bringing the matter up on the relevant talk page in the next few days. David Cannon (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

AWB

You are the second or third person to change 'St. Grat' to 'St. Great' using AWB, as you did with this edit. It even has a sic tag, indicating that the spelling is as intended. Why does this happen? BollyJeff | talk

• Good question! I honestly didn't know that was happening. Thanks for the heads-up — I'll have a look at the AWB settings/preferences and see if something is going on. It could be that it has a bug —I hope not. David Cannon (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects

In this edit and this edit you edited two of my talk page archives to bypass redirects.

Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken says: "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect. Please don't do this any more, without good reason. Particularly don't use a semi-automated tool such as AWB for this purpose.

Also, there is rarely a good reason to edit talk page archives, especially ones from so long ago. Why did you feel this was helpful to the project? DES ^(talk) 13:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Talk pages? I'm sorry, I should have set the filter to exclude them. As for other edits, I've brought the matter up on the policy's talk page, and we can all discuss it there. I've set out my reasons for what I've been doing, and others can also have their say. Admittedly, I've been on a bit of a crusade, because I was upset at the "mess" I found so many links in. But you may be right, I could be barking up the wrong tree. In particular, I should not have edited talk pages, as those are other users' private comments. I'm sorry I did not stop to think of that. I will not do that again. David Cannon (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do remember that when using AWB you are still responsible for every edit, and should at least check the page title before clicking save. DES ^(talk) 16:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was wrong not to slow down and do that. In future, depending on the outcome of the discussion on the policy's talk page, I will remember that, and will make sure all user pages and talk pages are filtered, and will double-check each edit before saving. David Cannon (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.

• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. edits such as this, this, and this all of which changed direct links via a redirect to piped links, and were moreover on user talk pages, thus changing the postings of other editors; edits such as this, this, and this in article talk pages, which similarly introduced piped links in place of links to redirect pages in article talk pages, and particularly edits such as this, this, this, this, this, and this constitute disruptive editing against Wikipedia:Redirect a guideline with consensus. DES ^(talk) 12:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing other people's usernames using AWB

Please be careful and do not change other editors' usernames or signatures. Recall that you are responsible for every typo fixed via AWB. I also suggest that you not e using typo fixing outside mainspace. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. Several others have alerted me to this, and today I changed my AWB settings to exclude all talk pages and user pages (except my own). I'm sorry. David Cannon (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. Please read the rules on AWB. You're making pointless edits, which is against the rules of use. And WP:STUBSPACING states "It is usually desirable..." Not that you must do it. Let me know when you find a policy that insists you must have two spaces. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have read the rules. I don't answer to you. Nothing pointless about cleaning up. Nor does it say that you must not. But if you want to argue, let's take it up in the relevant forum, not here. As a matter of fact, I've already mentioned it in one forum. David Cannon (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, Cannon. I'll point you to it - Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. " That's pretty clear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No noticeable affect? Well, if something is bunched up under something else, so that it looks like a part of something that it's not a part of, that's pretty noticeable if I change it. I don't answer to you, nor you to me. We'll both answer to the appropriate forum if you want to flog a dead horse. I've already mentioned the issue in at least one appropriate place — and yes, I've mentioned that you and I have a difference of opinion about that. David Cannon (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you're an admin! Ha! Once again, it's one rule for you, and one for everyone else. Keep up the good work. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, please point me to the policy that insists on the changes you are making with AWB. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Smith (rugby league)

Hi. So where is this edit supported in the article? Please read WP:CATGRS. I hate to think what other edits you've done along this nature with no supporting cites in the article body. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Look, I'm in the process of getting sources for all my categories. In the meantime, suffice to say, I think I know the Fijian scene pretty well. It's common sense that somebody with a name like Smith has British ancestry somewhere along the line.David Cannon (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:OR! I can't believe the attitude you're displaying about BLP articles. Absolutely disgusting. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It says that unsourced CONTENTIOUS claims about living people must be removed immediately. Show me one category I added that could be considered contentious. David Cannon (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This is CONTENTIOUS as I'm challenging it. It could well be Irish, or American. I can't believe your attitude about this - passing it off if it's OK. That's quite scary. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if something's unsourced, you're entitled to remove it. I can't argue with you on that, can I? David Cannon (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No. No you can't. And it's not the first time you've added unsourced info to a BLP article and had it reverted. I'll do some more digging. Can you point me to the desyopping process while you're at it? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's for you to figure out for yourself. David Cannon (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. Wooooosh. The evidence is quite eye-opening when looking at your past edits on BLPs. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• • And by the way, some of your reversions, removing the blank lines above the stub templates, could be considered vandalism. Think twice! If you persist, I WILL report that! I'm trying to make the page layout look nice, and if you keep on reverting me to make it look ugly, I'll take the matter further.David Cannon (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop

You are now hounding me and making changes against consensus of AWB. This is after you've been told to stop, per the rules on AWB. Do you understand? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, you are hounding me. Why don't you stop? Who are you anyway? Jimbo? David Cannon (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor attitude for an admin. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Push me and I'll resist" is also a pretty poor attitude for any user, admin or not. I think you are hounding me! As I said, I think the Manual of Style is pretty clear. AWB exists to bring articles closer to the Manual of Style. All AWB rules have to be read in that light. The question is, do my edits bring articles closer to the MOS, or don't they? By the way, I don't know whether you're an admin or not, and I don't want to know. David Cannon (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you insane? Please read WP:HOUNDING. You are now clearly stalking all my edits and continuing to edit despite against what the rules of AWB state. I'd strongly recommend you stop and wait until the discussion you started at the helpdesk has ended. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Stalking your edits? I think I've look at about 5 of your edits — which were reversions of MY edits. Other pages —I have no idea whether they're of any interest to you or not. By the way, I've been getting a lot of thank-you tags — you seem to be the only one complaining. David Cannon (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

And what authority do YOU have to tell me to stop??? Does any policy say that any user has to act at the whim of any Tom, Dick, or Harry who wanders in? Who do you think you are??? David Cannon (talk)

Please remain WP:CIVIL. I have the guidance at WP:AWB behind me, which is in contradiction to your edits. I'm amazed at your attiude. You have seemingly no grasp on WP:CONSENSUS when it comes to using AWB, continuing with edit-wars and you are in complete disregard to BLP policy too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to remain civil — you are the one making stupid accusations about stalking your edits — which I'm not. I'm editing pages in a series of categories that I have no idea whether they are of interest to you or not —I'm not privy to your watchlist! Anyway, I want to delete all your stuff on my talk page, but I'm leaving it up for now — so that others can make their own judgement about who's right or wrong. David Cannon (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Show me an edit I've made with AWB that failed to bring an article closer to the manual of style. If you cannot, then shut up. David Cannon (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I've come here because Sleaford railway station is on my watchlist. I was going to start a new section, but then I spotted this one. Here is an edit that goes against WP:AWB#Rules of use item 4, since the only changes were: removal of three insignificant spaces; addition of two insignificant blank lines; bypassing of one redirect (this last is also contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Then you might like to join the discussion at WT:AWB. I'm now using the settings that others on that forum have recommended. David Cannon (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making pointless edits like this. Genfixes should only be applied if significant changes were made. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

AWB frenzy

Thanks for taking the trouble to AWB so many of the articles I've worked on, I've been able to clean up lots of loose ends. I use Auto ed, which takes out the spaces that AWB puts back, I don't suppose you know of a way round this? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Keith! I'm breathing a sigh of relief after reading the full text of your note — when I first saw the heading I thought you might be someone who's unhappy at what I'm doing! So glad to know you appreciate it :-) Anyway, I'm not an Auto ed expert — that's another tool with which I hope to familiarize myself at some point. Most such tools are configurable, but it takes time to get know the ins and outs of their use —I'm still learning new features of AWB. My advice : experiment around, change one setting at a time, and see what happens. Also, I think there is probably a talk page on which you can discuss these things, just as there is for AWB. I've found the advice of many fellow-users invaluable. Anyway, it's great to see you around, Keith. Look forward to hearing more from you. David Cannon (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for giving you a fright ;O) Your editing is invaluable, I'd forgotten all about things like Force K and Combeforce that I'd been doodling on at odd moments and needed to finish, I can see that I've also become a little careless about word-wrapping. I'll ask around about Auto ed as I'm making work for other people. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• • :-) David Cannon (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

AWB – gentle notification

As a fellow user of AWB who's had his share of criticisms over its use, I'm going to be gentle here.  :) :It's been reported in AWB talk by an editor that he's continuing to see cosmetic-only changes via AWB from you. Converting a template alias or deprecated name to its primary/current name is consider cosmetic (they are resolved to the same HTML). If there isn't any true visual fix (as in the output the reader sees) among the array of fixes on a page, there is not enough pretext to save, and thus should be skipped. I always look through the AWB suggested fixes, not only to see if they are correct, but also to find a pretext to save -- this works pretty well for me. Please don't let the criticisms bring you down -- just learn from it and move on. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Stevie. Then should I uncheck the genfixes box? Or will that fail to solve the problem? David Cannon (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Skip only minor genfixes" should handle this. Cheers! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

    Okay then, I'll do that. I've really thought about giving up ... Even though a lot of people have thanked me for what I'm doing, just a couple of people have kept complaining about some unnecessary edits that got made. One of them even accused me of deliberately introducing errors. With friends like that, who needs enemies? I didn't bother to reply to his outrageous and unfounded allegation. But that sort of thing gets me down. David Cannon (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

    I did not accuse you of deliberately introducing errors. My edit summary was "that was deliberate", meaning "that way of marking up the page content was deliberately done that way so that it would not be interpreted as Wiki markup by the parser".

    Although I didn't use the words "introducing errors", you did in fact do exactly that. The page had been written such that an asterisk was deliberately being used as a footnote marker, and not as markup for a bulleted list, that is what I meant by "that was deliberate". The entity * was used to force the asterisk to be displayed literally, and you altered that to a plain asterisk. Compare the version how it was with how you left it. The asterisks in the table are no longer meaningful.

    There was nothing wrong with the page as it was, other than a missing closing parenthesis; you made no improvements at all but left it in a worse state than when you found it (besides that asterisk issue, you added the missing closing parenthesis in the wrong place, after the text "Nos. 73651 and 73797" instead of before it). This is why you are recommended to preview before saving, and why WP:AWB#Rules of use item 1 says "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." --Redrose64 (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

    Thank you for explaining, Redrose64 The wording led me to believe that you were leaping to conclusions and assuming bad faith on my part, for what was an honest mistake. I should have asked for clarification and was remiss in not doing so. As it turns out, I myself leapt to conclusions about what you meant, and I'm sorry I did that. I also regret refusing to listen to what you had to say after that - because I was angry at what I thought you meant. I was obviously wrong and I apologise. David Cannon (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

    OK, Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

    • Link to keep you in the loop: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Continued trivial edits by Davidcannon (t) Josve05a (c) 00:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

      Thank you Joseva. David Cannon (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

      modified from the WT:AWB post linked above You have continued to make AWB edits that either have no effect on the displayed page, or only very minor effect. Converting a template alias to its primary name is a common one. Examples: [1], [2], [3], and [4] and many others could be found. You have been asked to stop making such edits with AWB recently, [5], but have apparently continued. I pinged you on the initial post in the thread linked above, so it was not intended to leave you out of the loop. I understand that you are vchanging settings to try to avoid such edits, but please, you must check what is done for each edit, and not depend on the settings you select. DES ^(talk) 01:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

All right then, DES, I will do that from now on. I have changed the settings today as per Stevie's advice, and I will also slow down from now on and check to ensure that the edits really do make a difference. If I still keep getting complaints after this, I'll uncheck the genfixes option entirely. David Cannon (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• • • I'm trying out a few test edits now with the new settings. It's skipping a lot more pages than before. The kind of edits it's made in the last few minutes — hyphenating two nouns to make a compound adjective and typo fixing. And what about changing an "unreferenced" tag's date to the present? And this one, completing the web address of a reference? Orphaned pages are being tagged. Do these seem in order? I'll stop after about 100 edits max and evaluate (and see what others have to say too). David Cannon (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
      • The one edit I've made on this test-drive which I'm a bit doubtful about is this one. I thought that the change of font size would make a visible difference, but I can't see any. I'm using Google Chrome. If users of IE or Firefox report the same lack of change, that's something else I'll skip over from now on.David Cannon (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, I said I'd make 100 test edits. I've ended up making only 21, and I'm too tired now to make any more (it's 1am and I've had a longer day than usual). But I think that gives enough to evaluate. Nearly all of the edits I'm happy with. There are a few (which I've mentioned) which I personally think are in order, but which I'd like feedback on. The last one I mentioned — I saw no change but hit the save button anyway to see whether someone using a different browser notices anything different. IF NOT, then I'll skip that kind of edit in future. Please let me know. David Cannon (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
          • All of the mentioned edits were good, even the one which removed the small-tags. Some browsers (and screenreaders) handle these differently, but it is a good edit. As a general rule, if there will be visable changes to a page, then edit it, if not, do not edit. Some exceptions do exists, but this is the general rule. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

            Regarding the two edits to President of East Timor: the first one was mostly good, except that it left a broken heading - it now reads "Presidents of the East Timor|Democratic Republic of East Timor"; whilst the second one changed the font-size from 9.9px to 12.7px. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

            Thank you for the heads-up! That's definitely something I'll have to take greater care with in future. I'll have a look at the article now and fix it if nobody else has already done so. Putting the wikilinks back in the heading to solve the problem you mentioned — I actually took those out manually (albeit within the AWB browsing panel) because I thought that headings weren't supposed to contain wikilinks). David Cannon (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

            I've just made this edit. From the way it took out an empty parameter, I thought it would make a visible difference, but it hasn't. I'll remember that from now on. And — what about this edit, changing a short dash to a longer one — is that in order, or is it something I should avoid? David Cannon (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

            Delinking headings is good, but if it's a piped link, you need to remove the part up to and including the pipe as well, i.e. ===Presidents of the [[East Timor|Democratic Republic of East Timor]]=== becomes ===Presidents of the Democratic Republic of East Timor===. The edit to 13th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), which altered |volume=Volume 7 | |url= to |volume=Volume 7 |url=, was fine: none of the cite templates accept positional parameters. The edit at 1934 Pahiatua earthquake changed two instances of a hyphen-minus to an en-dash, this was exactly in accordance with MOS:ENDASH#In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

            Thank you for that advice :-) David Cannon (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

            • By the way, I thought that this edit would make a visible change, as it appeared that way in the editing window, but when I checked in my browser, there turned out not to be. Therefore, I'll avoid that kind of edit from now on. David Cannon (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

              That was a good change: with the cite templates, ISBNs should be in the |isbn= parameter, not the |id= param. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

              Thank you for letting me know! David Cannon (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

              What about this edit? I added a tag saying calling for more links (the article has only 3 links to articles- not counting user pages). Lugnuts reverted me (I'm not surprised - I'm used to his reversions by now). Okay, what advice would DESiegel, Redrose64, Josve05a and Stevietheman like to make on this? David Cannon (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

              In that particular case it is hard to see what else could be linked, except perhaps New Zealand and linking that would take little if any more time that adding the notice. My view is that what that article really needed was more content, which would need to be built on proper sources, of course. But that isn't s trivial edit -- it is a judgement call one might well disagree with. It would have been better had an edit summary been given indicating the reason for the revert, of course. DES ^(talk) 14:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

              AWB's algorithm for deciding to place that tag perhaps needs some tweaking. Report this as an issue to the AWB developers if you wish. I might not have accepted that suggested change, but even if I did, and someone reverted it, I would just let that go. The amount of links on a page is never worth a squabble. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

              Thank you both. No, I certainly won't edit war over it. What I wanted to know was whether that kind of edit was in order or not. And yes, I will be in touch with the AWB development team. Thanks! David Cannon (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

              Algorithm is just fine. It's your job to know when not to add a tag. A small article is a case where you shouldn't have added it. Lugnuts was correct in removing it. I've warned you about this... there are people who do not like tagging and it really is more grief than it is worth. Bgwhite (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

              Thank you — I'll bear that in mind:-) David Cannon (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

              An algorithm returning false positives demonstrates it has a bug. But I agree as always that editors are responsible for their edits, using AWB or not. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

              I agree too, Stevie. I've agreed to withdraw (at least until the end of the year) from using AWB, except with my own articles. In the meantime, I will study AWB more thoroughly and familiarise myself with what to avoid. Thank you for all your advice and encouragement — I'll lean heavily on your advice when I return to using AWB in the new year. David Cannon (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

AWB and kg - Please by more careful

I noticed that at Battle of Britain Day (linked from the main page today) you change several versions of ". KG" to ". kg" in error. Looking at your contributions for the last week or so I notice you've made the some mistake at The Hardest Day and Kanalkampf. I suspect if I went back further I'd notice more errors. I notice with this edit you even reverted yourself when you noticed it so I'm amazed it's continued to happen now you know it can. As is clearly stated at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." It would appear that you have been sacrificing quality for speed and not properly checking your edits using AWB - I note that in one instance the only change made was the kg one, and in another there were far more of any other change than any other, so I find it hard to believe you would not have spotted that these changes were in error if you were properly looking at the changes made by AWB. Continuing to act in this automated way without properly checking the edits could result in your access to AWB being withdrawn so I suggest you be more careful in future. Dpmuk (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• You and one other person have brought the KG problem to my attention — thank you. I will be more careful from now on. I reverted myself on the one occasion when I noticed it, but from now on I will take care to ensure that there are no more KG errors. David Cannon (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your talkpage is littered with people asking you to take more care with AWB, yet you ignore them and continue with pointless tagging. What part of it don't you grasp, Cannon? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you've reverted 3 of my edits today. I do not agree that they are pointless. This one, for example, deliberately linked Singapore — I do not believe that is pointless, and I believe you were wrong to revert me. The other two are more debatable: they both changed an outdated tag to a current one. There is disagreement among my advisers as to whether I should use tags at all, but surely a current date is preferable to an old one. But that's no biggie to me — I'm happy to refrain from changing dates in pre-existing tags. By the way, in my culture, it is an offence to address someone by his or her surname without a title. I object to that. If you want ANY cooperation from me whatsoever, that's a basic thing you'll have to fix - okay? You can call me David, or User:Davidcannon, or whatever. Surname-only addressing is arguably a case of incivility. David Cannon (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that someone else had commented here about your AWB use so decided to look at your edits since my last message and found two, probably three errors. And that's just from the small number I looked at because the edit summary suggested there may be a problem. As you're an admin (which I didn't previously realise) and so can't just have AWB access removed I've decided to take this to AN/I, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Davidcannon and AWB. Dpmuk (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've replied there. David Cannon (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

AWB. Again.

Per this - "User:Davidcannon is agreeing to only use AWB in articles they created themselves" and yet you continue to make bad edits with AWB. Look again at the correct use of the apostrophe. Shall we go back to ANI? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Two points on that. First, that was a proposal - nothing ever came of it. I went back a couple of days later, intending to offer an apology to the community. I found the discussion had vanished. I was never notified of any decision. From that, I concluded that nothing had been decided. Therefore, I consider myself released from the letter (but not the spirit) of the proposal -the spirit of it being to be very careful what kind of edits I make. Therefore, after every 50 edits, I'm going over all the edit summaries thoroughly and checking for any errors. If I find any, I will promptly fix them. Secondly, the edit you've pointed out is NOT a bad edit. It's a grammatical correction, and other editors (some of whom I'm clashed with on other issues) have agreed with me on that one.David Cannon (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to do some homework on apostrophes. Check again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Lugnuts - you might like to read This : "Decades are written in the format the 1980s, with no apostrophe. Use the two-digit form ('80s) only with an established social or cultural meaning. Avoid forms such as the 1700s that could refer to 10 or 100 years." Now, if you'll say that the manual of style is not infallible, we'll be in agreement, for once. But on THIS issue, it agrees with what I was taught at school (I realise that there are difference between countries, and even within countries, on the use of apostrophes). But when my edit FULLY complies with the manual of style, you are VERY mistaken to call it a "bad edit" or an "error." By the way, if you think your apostrophe usage is more "international" than my New Zealand-based usage, that's something you can discuss on the MOS talk page. In the meantime, let's follow the MOS, shall we? David Cannon (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You still don't get it. It's not about "1900s" or "1900's" - it's a possessive apostrophe. Look again at the text. "...who previously teamed with Miike on 2010's 13 Assassins" The film, 13 Assassians is belonging to 2010. So it's 2010's film. Replace "2010's" with, say Kubrick, for example and re-read it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected ... learn something new every day. That's something I didn't realise ... And I would have made exactly the same mistake with manual editing, too. But I won't any more! By the way, thank you for taking the time to explain that one. I know I've been unreasonable in the past and haven't listened well to your corrections (or others'), but I'm trying to learn better. David Cannon (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)