User talk:SemperIocundus

Please stop messing up citations with Citation Bot

Hi SemperIocundus.

From the (not completely congruent) edit summary left in this edit ([1]) I take it that this edit was carried out by you being assisted by Citation Bot. Strangely enough, the edit does not show up in your edit history, but unless someone faked you, you are the one responsible for the changes.

Unfortunately, your edit introduced many changes which are unhelpful, controversial or even erroneous. Please don't make such edits. It is extremely annoying to fix errors introduced by means of a bots.

Some examples of changes that should not have been done:

Please don't replace |publication-place= by |location=. These parameters are not the same. By changing the parameter name the citation will lose the information if the described location is for a publication place or a written-at location. As |location= is used for both (depending on circumstances), if someone used |publication-place= s/he deliberately did this for the reason to indicate a publication place.
Please do not remove empty parameters, as they were left in citations as a reminder to editors that some specific info is missing. There is no community consensus to remove them.
Please do not introduce other date formats. If the citations uses the ymd format, don't add dates in the dmy format, as you did with the doi-broken parameter. This is against WP:DATERET and MOS:CITEVAR.
Do not remove urls, in particular not when they are not exact duplicates of identifier-derived links or when an |archive-url= is provided as well. There is no community consensus for this.
Do not remove ID identifiers or ISBNs, when they are given. ISBNs serve as a search pattern, and unfortunately, ISBN-13 are not a superset of ISBN-10 pattern-wise.
Don't change GmbH into GMBH, the correct capitalization is GmbH (for: "Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung").

I take it that you are still new to Wikipedia, therefore sorry to welcome you with such an angry message. Although I am quite annoyed about such edits, I hope it still comes across that this is meant constructive in order to help you making better edits in the future. I don't want to discourage you, but it is important that your edits are actual improvement to an article, in particular when you are using tools, which can easily mess up masses of articles in no time. Never trust any tools to do it correctly.

If I may give you a tip, don't use tools unless you are an experienced editor (in particular don't use questionable tools such as Citation Bot), and try to learn how to format citations manually by reading the documentation and doing small changes at a time. If you are unsure if an edit you would carry out is correct, ask on the article's talk page first. Also, perhaps you can become active in other areas and actually provide contents to articles for topics for which you are an expert.

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit here, and discussion is occurring here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not run so many Citation bot runs at once

I do not want to turn the limitations back on. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]