Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:52, 3 December 2015

This is Magioladitis's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Stop violating the bot policy

@Magioladitis: Hello. Have you read and do you understand the Misplaced Pages bot policy, in particular WP:COSMETICBOT?

I am not even wikistalking, I am merely monitoring my watchilst on most days and your edits pop up very frequently, which means you must still make an enormous amount of automated changes. Do you understand that your edits are against the bot policy? Do you understand that repeated violations of Misplaced Pages policies can get you banned from editing? -- intgr  23:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

intgr So Magioladitis is making many edits, thus he must be making cosmetic changes? You need to do better proof than that. By definition, bots make many edits. Bgwhite (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Unnecessary snark. That message was intended to Magioladitis, not you, and he should already know what I'm talking about. -- intgr  00:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

intgr That wasn't meant as a snark, but as a question. You are accusing Magioladitis of cosmetic edits, but didn't say anything about it. Your proof was pages showing up in your watchlist and you threatened a ban. Talk pages are open to talk page stalkers. Threats, accusations against everybody and telling people to shove off is not a good way to do things. Bgwhite (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide some diffs that illustrate the problem, so it is clear what the problem is, or as sometimes happens (including to me) an editor notices what they think is a cosmetic edit but there is something being fixed at the same time that they do not notice, and that can be pointed out to them.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 00:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite and JohnBlackburne: Fine, here you go, just a small selection of automated edits that have zero visible impact on the page, just cluttering up watchlists. He continues to make these edits despite repeatedly being told not to. -- intgr  11:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sad to see this is still happening, despite many many warnings and discussions on this talk page recently. I checked a sample of the above diffs and all were purely cosmetic. The message does not seem to be getting through that this is undesirable and against policy. I see no other option but a block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A block for violation of WP:COSMETICBOT? The user is not a bot. The edits are in violation of WP:AWB#Rules of use but a week's block based on that seems harsh.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 12:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a block for violating part of Misplaced Pages:Bot policy. Magioladitis may not be a bot, but his activities are comparable in speed and nature to a bot's, so it falls within scope of the policy (see WP:MEATBOT for example). And as always, a block's duration is only for as long as is necessary to convince the community that the disruption has ceased. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ this task is done by Battybot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

intgr adding WPBS is done by Battybot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In this case a blp tag was added. 90% (rough approximation) of the edits were not purely cosmetic. The rest were done to add the stupid |1=. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I just stumbled onto this but thought I would make a comment. It seems silly to block them over these edits because as far as I can tell the links listed above all changed WikiProject Georgia to WikiProject Georgia (country). Whether that's an actual visible change is irrelevant to me because there is a big difference between the country and the state of Georgia and clarifying which it is seems to be a useful thing. While he is there, may as well fix other stuff too. Catnip the Elder (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Catnip the Elder this is also true. I found many confusions in the past between the two WikiProjects. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Good luck, I had noticed your name on some edits while I was tagging articles for the University of Massachusetts and thought your changes were beneficial. I was just coming here to tell you so when I saw this discussion. So for what its worth, not everyone thinks your doing a bad job. Whenever you get out of Wiki jail and if your interested, there seem to be a lot of biographies without the WikiProject Biography banner if you do those. Catnip the Elder (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Catnip the Elder: I agree that standardising template names may be a good thing and warrants a discussion with the community. But that's another argument from the one we're having here. The problem here is that mass edits should be done using a bot account (which has a "bot" flag) so it doesn't disturb users who monitor pages for changes made by humans. And to qualify for the bot account, there needs to be a discussion that these edits are indeed desired. -- intgr  15:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Intgr:According to the bot policy you link too (I was just reading up on it when you wrote your statement) it "could" be a violation of bot if you do more than ten edits a minute. I don't see him doing that. Did I miss something? Sure he did a lot of edits, but that's a good thing is it not? Do we really want to punish editors who do a lot? That seems counterproductive to me. I also see he has a bot that's approved to do edits of this type, so presumably that would extend to the operator of the bot as well to a degree. Personally, if I saw the same user doing edits I didn't care about, I would just ignore them. To me the purpose of the watchlists are to watch for stuff like Vandalism or unwanted changes, maybe I am wrong, but these don't really fit into that criteria so why not just ignore them. It seems like arguments over stuff like this just wastes time and is more symantics and personal opinions than policy based. We should be asking ourselves "does this improve the articles and if that answer is yes, then the edit is beneficial and carry on about our day. Maybe I'm just stupid or naïve, but that's just my opinion anyway. P.S., thanks for showing me that ping thing, I learneded something new today.Catnip the Elder (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Catnip the Elder:, The change from {{WikiProject Georgia}} to {{WikiProject Georgia (country)}} is a purely cosmetic change since Template:WikiProject Georgia is just a redirect to Template:WikiProject Georgia (country). -- GB fan 15:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What do I know, I have been here for a week, but it seems to me, again, that clarifying the difference between the state and the country would be a good thing. It may not matter for the person who does a thousand edits a day, has been here since the beginning of Misplaced Pages and is intimately familiar with the projects inner workings, but for a dumb ass like me and the 7 billion other average readers, we don't know....or care! Sure it may display the same, but when the talk page is opened up in edit mode (which presumably does happen on talk pages), then it would not be as clear. Since The country is in the news a bit lately I would assume some new editors are showing up to edit and comment about that conflict there. So, it seems reasonable to me to assume that some of these folks would be confused about the country and the state. Would someone in the Country of Georgia know there is a state? Would they care? Not trying to be argumentative or whatever but this whole discussion and block seems silly to me. Catnip the Elder (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne and MSGJ: If I understand correctly, Magioladitis was warned to stop doing cosmetic edits via a bot. He stopped. Intgr then complained again about Magioladitis not following WP:COSMETICBOT. But Magioladitis was editing manually. MSGJ then blocked Magioladitis for editing too fast with AWB. Correct??? If so, ok. I do find it interesting that Magioladitis is always singled out, while others get a pass. OccultZone was doing tens of thousands of these same edits and nothing. Ser Amantio di Nicolao does upwards of 50 edits a minute with AWB and nothing. Bgwhite (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record: This is the third tweak I tried. I started by bypassing redirects with low count, then redirects with low count AND non-standard name, then redirects with low count AND non-standard name AND with WPBS missing or with no |1=. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't understand the need to bypass redirects in any case whatsoever (WP:NOTBROKEN). If the redirects are bad, they should be brought to RFD and deleted. — Earwig  04:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Earwig the block reason now is now about bypassing redirects but for doing bot job since a bot does it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. What bot was approved to bypass redirects? — Earwig  07:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Earwig Le me summarise: I got two warnings and 1 block. The things I did might look alike but there are not the same! The last series of edits, where mainly to add WPBS where it was needed per WP:TPL and it is done by BattyBot. Recently, we did an improvement to AWB to become more effective on that. It is true that my settings file was more loosy to save time so it needed to also bypass redirects of WPBS. GoingBatty does it better than me but slower. So here we have three different complains: a) Some of the things I do should not be done b) Some of the things I do could be done but by bot c) some of the things I do could be done after XfDs. Now, the situation is this: Redirects of wikiprojects are really going down because they are mainly done by bots. So, most of the non-standard redirect names (those not staring from WikiProject.. nor WP..) have less than 100 transclusions. So, we keep large portions of codes/scripts in order to deal with things with low frequency. A less than a day work could give an end to this situation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, a large proportion of your most recent edits did not add the WikiProjectBannerShell to the pages, such as the ones I pointed out above (from the sample that I looked at, it was more than the 10% you claimed above).

However, all your edits were changing WikiProject templates to bypass redirects. You claim that BattyBot is also doing the same edits that you make. Please point out, which User:BattyBot task is authorized to bypass WikiProject template redirects without any other changes to the page. -- intgr  08:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like an answer to the question I asked. I am not particularly concerned with whether this task is carried out by a bot or a human using AWB. Why do we need to reduce the number of transclusions to templates with slightly non-standard names with such urgency that we are overriding WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:NOTBROKEN? If the names are so awful that they are actively confusing editors (which is the point brought up by Catnip the Elder above, and is an important one in certain cases), we should be deleting the redirects following a discussion. As I see it, what you are doing now is pointless and Sisyphean because editors will continue to use the alternate names for eternity as long as they work. This task should come after the deletion discussion, not before it. And with respect to |1=, does that have to be explicit? I see examples that work without it. — Earwig  08:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Earwig I'm going to drop out of this discussion after this comment because it seems like folks have their minds set on making sure these changes don't get done and I find that to be a shame and see no point continuing in arguing the matter. If the changes are no big deal as you say, then that works both ways. It shouldn't matter if someone wants to spend their time fixing them, its their time and even small improvements help the project IMO. With regard to deleting some, I would also agree that some should be deleted, I do not think this one should be deleted, but it should be clarified as Magioladitis has been doing. As I mentioned above we need to consider what the average user/reader thinks and sees, not the ones who have been here and know all the complex inner workings of the banner template syntax. People add the banner for Georgia thinking its right, because it works. The users don't know, they just drop the banner and keep going. Its then up to more experiences folks like Magioladits to fix it and clarify it. We should not assume that everyone is born with the knowledge that X redirect = Y Template. To me this seems like intgr is nitpicking because they feel inconvenienced by edits to "their" pages on "their" watchlists. This is simply not the big deal its being made into frankly and if minor stuff like this gets experienced and well meaning people blocked for a week, then it makes me want to reassess if using my time here is worthwhile. Catnip the Elder (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Section break

The Earwig Yes, I believe some redirects should be deleted or deprecated because they cause confusions. In some cases I have seen Wikioroject banner redirects used in mainspace. On the |1= problem: There is a longstanding AWB bug that causes AWB to freeze when the tagging plugin is used and the banner does not have the parameter. This is programming bug which I tried to solve. But since the needs of tagging sometimes are more urgent than fixing a software bug I think it's no harm if I go to the few pages not using the parameter and add to prevent the problem. Some people fins find disturbing. I note that the pages with missing 1 parameters are very few. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Although I still feel the block too harsh I also think you are wrong on both these points. The existence and usage of redirect shortcuts is a long standing and accepted practice on WP. Their main benefit is they reduce the cognitive load for editors as there is less to remember. They also arise due to page moves and renames. If they are problematic the take them to RFD, otherwise leave them alone.

As for |1= if there is a bug in AWB then fix the bug. A known crashing/freezing bug should be particularly easy to find and analyse. It is no appropriate to change otherwise working page markup because an optional tool is broken. If AWB is unusable in the meantime then stop using it.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 16:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne the deletion is only my suggestion. In practice I discuss only about the ones not really used. I do not suggest any mass deletion. We can check everything case by case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is useful if we don't confuse new editors (or old editors!) with many different variant names of templates. This really reduces the cognitive load. In this case for 2317 out of 2318 WikiProjects (numbers made up) the name of the banner template is the same as the name of the project. That's low cognitive load by anyone's standard. We do not necessarily want to delete redirects, even if they are orphan, because they can be good short-cuts {{WPBio}} for example - but there should not be any objection to replacing them with clearer templates that user full words from the English language. Some, like {{Physics}} are a waste of good namespace. There are other arguments for both preserving and deleting redirects, regardless of whether they are orphaned or not - and techniques to help resolve the issues.

(For myself, formerly a big fan of short-cuts, I have found being forced to type them in full, instead of relying on a bot to expand them is not as onerous as I thought. But perhaps I just prefer the more relaxed pace in my old age.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Nobody here has argued against normalizing WikiProject template names. The whole saga is about this user repeatedly violating the bot policy by not requesting a bot approval and doing all the edits from his personal WP account. -- intgr  22:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

intgr Ah OK. I did not get that. Then we do not disagree. It was my mistake to use my normal account and not wait for BattyBot to do the heavy job for me. Sorry for that. I can stick to bots do the job instead of using my normal account. I also would like to protect my fingers from constant key stroking. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you undertake not to use AWB at all on your main account for some time, e.g. 6 months? As well as protecting your fingers, it would also obviate any need to restrict your main account due to problems with automated edits. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Did you make the same proposal to any other AWB users? Please don't because this might discourage people from editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: You do know he is one of the AWB devs right? I assume you do, so you know there is no way they can even do what your asking even if they wanted too. Catnip the Elder (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this has turned into wanting a pound of flesh. What is the crime? Manually editing at a high rate of speed what a bot is already doing and in intgr's case, filling up their watchlist. If Magioladitis is banned, are you prepared to ban Ser Amantio di Nicolao and others? They are going at a higher rate of speed. As nobody responded to the same question I posed above, I gather this is a witch hunt for one person. Magioladitis helps me out by fixing Checkwiki errors every day. With him out, It's taking me a few more hours to finish. You have to use AWB for this. This doesn't count removing deprecated parameters from infoboxes and other tasks.

As Magioladitis' kryptonite is only related to talk page banners, wouldn't a talk page topic ban while using AWB be more appropriate? Bgwhite (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Essentially this is the "watchlist problem". There is a gadget or widget or something that will hide a given editor's edits, I believe. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

If this is a watchlist problem then its not a problem with the edits or the editor, its a problem with one user complaining about being inconvenienced because someone is doing too many edits to articles on their watchlist. Editing articles and fixing problems is not something that should be avoided, it should be encouraged and complaining that someone is editing articles on a watchlist that can be easily ignored is not, to me, the answer to this problem. The problem should be dealt with by the user ignoring the edits and focusing more attention on other articles. Not every task needs to be done as a bot and just because someone does 10 or 20 edits rapidly with AWB doesn't mean they need a bot task for it especially when there are several other editors with much higher edit counts and rates of editing that no one cares about. Catnip the Elder (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No I have not, but I am not aware of similar problems with other editors using AWB. The suggestion was made in good faith and designed to pragmatic. I have no desire to keep you Magioladitis blocked just because of your problematic automated edits. It would be entirely within usual practice and in line with WP:SOCK#LEGIT to do your automated (or semi-automated) edits on a separate account to your main account. Then if these issues recur (and I hope they do not, but I have seen sufficient background to have a reasonable suspicion that they may) then at least it would not restrict you from non-automated edits. Is this a reasonable proposal or do you have some particular reason for requiring all these edits to be on your main account? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ The reverts of some AWB edits help me in spotting and fixing bugs. I already have the bot account and in the past I proposed to have two bot accounts: one for mainspace edits and one for talk page fixes but the idea was rejected. As I wrote, there was a misunderstanding from my side of what it was asked from me not to do this time. The nature of the problem now and of 5(?) years ago is similar but not the same. Since, it was cleared out please let's move on. I 've been using AWB from my main account for many years with minimum complains. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It does not instil great confidence that you rely on other editors to revert your bot to find where it is making errors! On the other points: you do not need to propose an alternate account; you can just go ahead and create an account (e.g. Magioladitis2) and make your automated edits from there. Yes, you have been using AWB from your main account for many years but there have been many many complaints from others about this issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Then, everything is set for the block to be lifted. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ, Making edits from alternative accounts like Magioladitis2 isn't going to work. Unless that account has the bot flag its still going to show up in the watchlists of others. The problem here is for people to stop blocking people because someone complaining about edits showing up in their watchlists. That is not a valid argument for blocking and this block has clearly become punitive and symantic and not preventative as it should be. Catnip the Elder (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but you are conflating two different things.

1. Magioladitis's bot-like edits would be better done with approval from WP:BRFA. If there is consensus for these edits, let them be done from his bot account, and the watchlist problem would not exist. Instead of complaining about the block, your efforts would be better spent encouraging Magioladitis to do this.
2. It was a separate and parallel suggestion that Magioladitis's semi-automated edits could be conducted on a separate account. Then if problems recur, we can block that account without blocking Magioladitis himself.

The block is absolutely not puntive. Nothing that Magioladitis has said has given any assurance that these issues have been resolved. I cannot force him to comply with the suggestions above, but I will escalate the blocks if necessary to enforce the policy and the next step will be a proposal at WP:AN for a topic-ban of all automated edits without explicit approval. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ I already asked other bot owners to help in tasks I do semi-manually. Check below. I am not convinced that the problem(?) is limited to me. Many highly active editors do things that could be done by a bot/alternate account. Can you please unblock me now so I can keep helping with other tasks? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ I don't think you understand and none of your suggestions make sense.

1. The watchlist "problem" will exist weather done from a bot or user account. I get complaints that my bot fills up people's watchlist. If you run a bot that does alot of editing, you get complaints.
2. One is not required to get separate accounts. In fact it is discouraged.
3. An individual is blocked, not an account. If an alternate account becomes blocked, the individual is not to edit from any of their accounts. Under your scenario, Magioladitis could be using their bot account, Yobot while he has been blocked this past week.
4. Your block was definitely punitive. Well, all blocks not for vandalism have a punitive component and most blaocks after 3 days becomes punitive. One doesn't come in after ~5 years and block a week. I find this case similar to Neelix's. Neelix was not blocked after doing thousands of bad redirects after being warned ~5 years earlier.

Again, why are you only going after Magioladitis? Ser Amantio di Nicolao has been doing ~30 edits a minute with AWB in the past day. This is not possible to do manually/bot with one AWB instance. AWB cannot load and save an article in 2 seconds. I've caught Ser doing 57 edits a minutes, which is impossible unless AWB has been hacked. They have "general fixes" turned on, so AWB is making other edits besides the primary. Going that fast, one cannot check for errors being made by AWB. So, now you have been told of somebody going over twice as fast as Magioladtis and so fast they aren't checking for mistakes. You now have been made aware of somebody being far "worse" than Magioladitis. Bgwhite (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: I don't want to get involved in the rest of your points, but "why are you only going after Magioladitis?" is not a helpful argument, for the same reasons that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid vote on AfD discussions. People working on Misplaced Pages are volunteers, including admins. Volunteers will work on tasks that they want to. You can make suggestions on what else they might have an interest in, but it makes no sense to require him to address every AWB user because he banned one of them. If you believe Ser's edits violate WP policies, go for WP:ANI yourself. -- intgr  22:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

intgr It is a helpful argument. I have gotten after Ser. Most people were not interested or said Ser wasn't doing any harm. If Ser is going twice as fast as Magioladitis, illegally modifying AWB, not checking for errors and nothing was done, why is Magioladitis blocked and threatened? Also, why are you two only thinking blocks? My topic ban suggestion wasn't even commented on. Instead you both want to kill the patient to cure the disease. Bgwhite (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite:, to respond to your points above:

1. If the edits are approved via WP:BRFA and applied with the bot flag, then any complaints will be groundless as far as I'm concerned. Editors can switch off bot edits from their watchlists.
2. If you read the policy again, I think you will find that it is actually encouraged to create a separate account for maintenance purposes.
3. It is in fact quite valid and common to block a misbehaving bot account while leaving the owner unblocked.

I think I have covered the other points previously. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis's problematic behavior

First: I've been assertive recently in my communication with Magioladitis, to the point that it may seem unreasonable. But when I wrote my first messages, I started with plenty of benefit of the doubt. It's only because this issue comes up again and again so frequently and doesn't get resolved. When I have pointed out these problems to Magioladitis, he makes it seem like he agrees with me and will avoid the behavior future, but continues despite it. Without voicing his disagreement with my position—so there's nothing to build a discussion on, to arrive at a compromise/consensus. Without following the proper processes that are pointed out to him. For example (emphasis added):

• #AWB "cleanup" breakage — 28 October 2015, Magioladitis says "I try to standarsise the wikiproject names by getting rid of most of non-standard names. I stopped though"
• Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard#Mass AWB edits that clutter up watchlists — 3 November 2015, Magioladitis says "intgr I stopped. A bot, BattyBot already is doing something similar and I am still waiting for some stats to ask whether a bot can do it for me I know that disruption of watchlists is a bad side-effect and I apolosise for this"
• #Automated edits without visible changes — 11 November 2015, Magioladitis claims "The template has almost 1 million transclusions and only 150 of them had a problem 2 years since the last I did something similar". There are 150 templates with a problem, yet it takes thousands of more edits to fix it?

If you repeatedly say one thing and do another thing, then that's insincere; I don't want someone like that to make large-scale edits across Misplaced Pages. It seems almost like denial of an addiction. It may be that I am misunderstsanding some of the communication, but that can only be solved with more constructive discussion, which I haven't had.

As for applying the bot policy: The community has designed a framework of guidelines and policies that everyone should adhere to. The watchlist disruption that I pointed out is just one of the considerations involved in designing the policy. I shouldn't have to justify the guidelines and policies every time someone violates them or disagrees with them. If you don't like the guidelines and processes, you can get involved in the community process to get them changed. But until that happens, constructive editors are expected to abide by them (within reason).

So, please avoid discussing here whether standardising project templates is a good thing or whether people may make large numbers of automated edits. This ban is about Magioladitis's insincere communication with other editors in relation to the bot policy. @MSGJ: Do you agree with my characterisation? -- intgr  16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

intgr As I said: There were three separate types of fixing. I stopped, tweaked, stopped, tweaked, stopped. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: You can claim "three separate types of fixing" based on some technicality, but it always involved cosmetic changes to WikiProject templates on article talk pages. I was saying that you need a bot approval to make such changes. And you thought all you need to do is stop for a moment, "tweak" the code a little and continue? This sounds like just another insincere excuse. It's clear to everyone that you can't get a bot approval by tweaking the code.

Please admit your mistakes and take steps to change your behavior — that's how you can regain trust from other people. -- intgr  08:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis - Martin asked me to add my thoughts here. I know your heart is in the right place, and you're doing what you think is helpful for Misplaced Pages. There might be less concerns about your edits if your edit summaries were more specific to indicate those separate types of fixing, especially for those edits that don't change the way that the page is displayed. For example, "adding mandatory 1= parameter for WikiProjectBannerShell" would be more specific than "clean up" or "fix". Thanks, and looking forward to having you back! GoingBatty (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@GoingBatty. I know. The edit summaries is a typical mistake of my side. Thanks for the advice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Intgr, you never explained me why adding a blp tag should not be done by non-bot editors. BLP tags are useful disclaimers requested to be add to all pages about living people. I suspect that adding this edit in the list of "useless edits" or the list of "edits that should not be done by humans" might have been mistake but I would like to be sure about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, putting the link on that list was a mistake. Adding BLP tags certainly doesn't fall under WP:COSMETICBOT, but there are other parts of bot policy that suggest you need a bot approval for massive computer-assisted changes. I believe that you should still seek a bot approval for that. -- intgr  09:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ingr, et. al. I ll go for a BRFA as soon as I am unblocked. My bot already has approval for similar tasks. I hope this helps. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Mountains

@Hazard-SJ: I can help with the task described in Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests#WikiProject_Mountains_banner_update. My bot can perform the banner update. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Deprecated banner parameters

@GoingBatty: I wonder if you should ask BRFA for deprecated banner parameters. This might be an extension of your BattyBot's current activities. What do you think? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I can even provide you the script for Category:United States articles with deprecated tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I can also create scripts for Category:Central America articles with deprecated tags and Category:Africa articles with deprecated tags.

Bgwhite you could also help with these categories using your bot? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting bot approval is the way to go, and would also provide another opportunity to make other talk page fixes at the same time. Unfortunately I have more than enough bot tasks on my plate at the moment. Maybe I'll be able to catch up over the holidays. GoingBatty (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty and Intgr I filled a BRFA as requested. I hope you support it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: too. Sorry I forgot to ping before. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I saw it on my watchlist. Will comment shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Magioladitis, Thanks for this. I couldn't figure out what the blizzard is happening there. Even after removing wiki code and replacing with inverted commas, it did not come right. Thanks for fixing. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the A-Hmao language page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Stupid Cupid The Series page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yobot adding "nbsp" syntax to distance measurements

Hi, I hope I'm not missing a FAQ or something that covered this already, but I wanted to ask if having the bot add   before "km" as in this edit here is intentional. I believe that just using a space e.g. 20 km instead of 20 km would be more human-friendly and accomplish the same thing, but I wanted to check and see if there was a need for it. Thanks, and I appreciate the bot cleaning up after my syntax :) -- Joren (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

<talk page stalker> Joren, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers it is long to read. In brief, if you are casually editing focus on the content more than on this type of formatting. That MOS page will give you a lot more details if you want to read up on it (basically it helps keep the number and unit symbol together in some instances where they will line wrap to different lines). Happy editing, — xaosflux 02:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah... that explains it :) Thanks -- Joren (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 November

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 Croatian literature page, your edit caused a URL 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) 00:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Wikiproject Medicine Tabs

Need to also rename the template/translcuded page? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Ferguson I think I fixed all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 December

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 Mehrunnisa Parvez page, your edit caused a URL 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) 00:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I did a mistake

After logging out and logging in again. I ve been editing using my bot account instead of my normal account since 16:17, 2 December 2015 till 17:45, 2 December 2015. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Zhou Chuchu page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Krupski page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mayabazar

You recently edited this page. The peer review link is now missing. Why is the FAC link at the bottom? The link you cited says open GA reviews should be at the top, but does not mention FA reviews. I would think it would be similar. BollyJeff | talk 15:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Bollyjeff is this OK now? Feel free to rearrange it in the way you think it's the correct one and I'll check whether the WP:TPL needs update. Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I was able to put it into the article milestones section, hopefully correctly. BollyJeff | talk 18:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mass cosmetic changes

I see you have now resumed your mass cosmetic changes that was the cause of the recent block on your account. Has anything been learned from that episode? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you show your proof when you make accusations. Where has Magioladitis been doing "mass" cosmetic changes via AWB or bot? I see him doing changes manually at a rate of 2 a minute, but there is no rule against that. Bgwhite (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)