User talk:109.76.128.25

August 2025

Hello, I'm Hammersoft. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to How to Train Your Dragon (2025 film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is breaking the article, resulting in it saying "Template:Rotten Tomatoes film prose Metacritic". Please stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix the typo in my next edit. -- 109.76.128.25 (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the WP:SIMPLE rules and explained my changes. Did you read the diff? I added some extra line breaks and spacing. I replaced some acronyms with full words for clarity. I do not see how any reasonable editor could describe such harmless minor edits as "not constructive" and it is remarkably hostile. The history of wiki markup is about being clearer and more human readable (compared to other markup they could have used for this project like XML/XHMTL), arguing against clarity is misunderstanding the history of this project. There is no requirement to get an account, please remember that IP editors are human too WP:IPHUMAN. If if strict or tidy markup are not something you personally care about my edits were made entirely in WP:GOODFAITH. -- 109.76.128.25 (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt your edits are made in good faith. That doesn't make them correct. I respect all editors on Wikipedia. See my userpage for proof of that. Your edits are introducing an error into the article, resulting in malformation. That's why it's been reverted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more careful and used the preview.
You should follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide a meaningful edit summary. The simple rules apply to everyone.

I think you might have forgotten how harsh and hostile these kind of talk page warnings feel. Your warning wasn't even clear, it took a second attempt before I realized my mistake. I apologize for my haste and I should have been more careful but I hope you will think about being more careful and clearer in your edit summaries too. -- 109.76.128.25 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is a standard templated warning. See {{uw-vandalism1}}. It is widely used in circumstances such as this. If you have concerns about the wording of the warning, you may want to suggest changes to it at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace. The "Undid" edit summary is perfectly valid and again, widely used across the project in circumstances such as this. I undid your edit and placed the notice on your talk page. Your reaction to this was to re-introduce the same error into the article. So, I posted another message above on your talk page here and reverted your edit. This is perfectly normal, and how things progress here. Not to be prickly, but I don't see any reason to change how I did this. If you have an issue with this, you are more than welcome to raise the issue at WP:AN/I to get other eyes on my behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your second comment added detail explaining the specific mistake I made. If your first comment had also included that necessary context in addition to the warning message I would have understood corrected the mistake instead of repeating it.

I choose to edit anonymously, I get a lot of trigger happy editors reverting without actually having read the diff. On this occasion I was wrong, but clear and meaningful edit summaries always help. Please use edit summaries. -- 109.76.128.25 (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, how I handled this was perfectly normal. If you find your edits reverted and a warning notice placed on your talk page, your first reaction shouldn't be to reintroduce the same edit. There was obviously an issue with it. Ask questions, yes. Simply reintroduce the same edit, no. It's perfectly fine you choose to edit as an IP. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with this, and I readily grant too many people here demonize IP editing. I am not one of them, and I have fought in defense of IP editors before. This is not a case where someone was being trigger happy with you. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it was not obvious. (Yes I should have been more careful and used preview, but the template names are similarly but inconsistently named and I used the wrong incantation.) I did not realize until you told me that this an actual typo error and not just an editor casually rejecting my changes that they didn't care for.

I was perhaps already a little on edge because I had only just encountered a user Special:Contributions/VoteBlue who was casually stripping spaces from wiki markup with no consideration for other editors. Human readable markup is underrated.

Some editors absolutely fail to understand these kinds of readability edits and reject them not because of any actual error but because they simply don't care. If I had a dime for every editor who replace <br /> with <br>! I get it, most editors don't care about pedantic wiki gnome formatting, it's the ones who try to prevent it that wear me down and made it so that unfortunately I overreacted in this case when the fault was mine. -- 109.76.128.25 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Press on... --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

cool thanks. I'm going to go touch grass for now. will probably be back to editing sporadically again soon. -- 109.76.128.25 (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you come to my userpage to complain about my edits (which ARE allowed), while you yourself are not following the guidleines. Hypocrisy? VoteBlue (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Rourke edits

Thanks for the edits to the Mickey Rourke. I am just here to say that you shouldn't (to my knowledge atleast) put templates like verification failed inside references, as you did here as they don't display correctly. Otherwise, happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So they go beside or outside the reference? I will try to remember. I care about facts and content, I find it difficult to care about style or layout, but I will try to remember. -- 109.76.128.25 (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and I mispelled "verifiction" [sic] so that's why it didn't display correctly. (I need to use preview more often, but I used to know these things all too well and I've gotten lazy about checking properly.) -- 109.76.128.25 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That might have been part of the issue. I noticed that it was seemingly only displaying when you hovered over the citation, where it would be better to just be next to it, like </ref>{template here}. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case this explanation is bad, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Failed_verification#How_to_use has a clearer explanation. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]