User talk:CyrusTheMediocre

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RangersRus was:

This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event for more information.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2018 Bayshore Boulevard crash and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RangersRus (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Bayshore Boulevard crash, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GGOTCC 23:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job on 2018 Bayshore Boulevard crash! GGOTCC 23:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work updating the demographics of so many US county articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can your script be modified to not link directly to API URLs, which may be less permanent and verifiable than the normal tables? The repetition of "United States Census Bureau" in the website field is also unneeded. SounderBruce 21:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SounderBruce, I appreciate the feedback. I will fix the duplicate "United States Census Bureau" right away. As for linking to Census QuickFacts tables instead API URLs, I considered this but I think the APIs may actually be more permanent (there are still live APIs in the same format from 2010 and 2000). Can you provide references to any policies or guidelines that support using Census QuickFacts tables over the API? CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Boulder County, Colorado, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my bad. I've got a bot that is adding 2020 census data to various counties, but sometimes it makes mistakes - like the ref tag in Boulder County, Colorado. I always go through and personally verify the changes but sometimes I don't get to it right away. I'm currently working on a mechanism that will set aside important/larger counties so that I only run updates for them when I directly have hands on the keyboard to validate. CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something needs tweaking... four separate citation errors (missing /ref tag) at Oconee County, South Carolina. Fixed; just a heads-up. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Bee Cave, Texas when you modified the page, you introduced conversion errors. The {{convert}} template can be complex and I encourage you to read its documentation but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it and when conversion errors are present they will show up in red. It is strongly recommended that you always use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The census script is adding "&amp" in place of just the ampersand in links, which is causing errors. SounderBruce 18:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SounderBruce, thanks for letting me know. I have been spot-checking the links and have not seen this issue. Can you provide an example? CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just cleaned up one set at Astoria, Oregon. SounderBruce 18:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you effectively adding duplicates of content that is already covered in articles? Most of these articles already have tables detailing the 2020 census data. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them have tables on race for the 2020 census, but not on any of the other information. Can you please provide an example of an article where you believe there is duplicate data? CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just realized not all of these already had race/ethnicity tables. I was referring to duplicate race/ethnicity tables, such as the one you added to Chattanooga, Tennessee. There's no need for two of these. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this editor is that for Rockwall, Texas they have a 2020 population date based on a 2015 date. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to add duplicate tables to cities that already have them. Why is this? Bneu2013 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're not duplicates, one treats "hispanic" as an ethnicity that is independent of race, and another only counts "non-hispanic" for each other race and then essentially treats "hispanic" as a race in and of itself. Its a confusing distinction that I think they are getting rid of in future censuses, but they still had it in 2020.

I don't think it's incorrect to include one, the other, or both. Are you aware of any wikipedia guidelines about this topic? CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly, but nearly all sources refer to Hispanic as an ethnicity along with other racial/ethnic groups, so it's best to use this formulation. For example, "white" generally refers to people of European descent who do not have Hispanic descent, even though most Hispanics probably do have European ancestry. I do recall this being discussed after the 2020 census data was released, but I'd have to do the digging to find the discussion. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that majority of the articles in Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls appear to be due to your recent edits. Specifically, you added the parameter "|2020=x" to the US Census population template even though the same parameter was already present, which resulted in duplicate arguments. – Subway 09:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out! Those articles had a formatting issue with the population table, which caused an edge case my bot for that task didn't handle. I have fixed it and am running a different script to fix the existing pages. CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is one of many with an edit summary stating "Normalize US Census population table formatting". The placement of the parameter in the US Census population template had been part of a deliberate effort to make it easier for editors to see that there is a footnote regarding changes in the land area of the municipality since the previous census. As rendered on the page, the asterisk in the note parameter appears next to the data for the designated year. I'm not sure how your multiple edits "normalize" anything. If anything, it makes it more confusing for a future editor to understand what these parameters are doing in the middle of the data.

How do these mass changes improv any of these articles, as they render exactly the same and make it harder for an editor to understand the data in the table? Am I missing something? Alansohn (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @CyrusTheMediocre! I've noticed your edits to a lot of U.S. geographic articles; it looks like you might be running a bot on your account to update U.S. census data(?) on these articles. If so, I wanted to let you know that under the bot policy, it'd probably be a good idea to set up a separate bot account and get the task approved at WP:BRFA. That's usually a requirement for running tasks like these onwiki; if there's not already a discussion creating a consensus for the task, by the way, you'll probably want to start there. Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions! Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 17:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyrus – echoing everything Staraction said, you seem to currently be running multiple unauthorized mainspace bot tasks on your main account, which is something the community doesn't allow. For the moment, I've blocked your account just to stop the tasks from running, but I'm happy to unblock whenever you come back and respond that you've turned off the bot. I don't think you'll have much of an issue gaining consensus or going through BAG, but one of the reasons we require this is so that if something goes wrong (like it seems to have a couple of times, looking over your talk), admins don't have to block your main account to stop the task. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my bad. I didn't realize that there was more of a process than just setting up an api connection and running the bot. I will go ahead and do it properly per WP:BRFA. I would appreciate it if you could unblock my account. Thanks! CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mabton, Washington, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asian was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the crime sections in Everett, Washington and Lynnwood, Washington has been reverted. Please make sure to discuss major section removals on the talk page and gain consensus first. The census updates are appreciated, but they need to be done in separate articles to make decoupling changes easier. SounderBruce 05:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake on the part of my bot. They should have been moved to their own H2 section (==Crime==), but instead they got deleted. I'll be careful to fix that CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove relevant statistics as was done at Edmonds, Washington. For good and featured articles, the wording was carefully selected after reviews, and should remain with statistics updated rather than removed for a less refined prose template. SounderBruce 04:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I removed income data from 2012 that I don't believe would be very meaningful to a current reader because of inflation. Is there established precedent for preserving such data? CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to find an updated equivalent or tag with {{needs update}} and let another editor handle it. If there's been no response for a while, then removal is fine. SounderBruce 04:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the guidance. I am planning to add 2024 ACS data (the most recent year available) once my bot access is added, but for now I'll avoid deleting that sort of data. CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears several of your edits on Texas county articles, and possibly articles elsewhere, carelessly inserted increase/decrease arrow templates for population estimate comparisons inside the citations' {{cite web}} calls when those calls spanned multiple lines, thereby breaking the template calls and hiding the arrows in the references section instead of displaying them in the actual population history table. Two examples are this fix I had to make on Gray County, Texas, and this example (live as of this post). Reading the posts above, I imagine they were automated edits, explaining the carelessness. Please fix them. -happy5214 22:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had a follow-up script that was going to fix all of those, but they blocked my account in the middle of it CyrusTheBot (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taking one demographic statistic from many in the article and turn the data into a table has no real meaning to the page at all, except maybe to make it busier looking or to satisfy the editor in some manner. Please stop these needless addendums. ~2026-12942-56 (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expressing your concern. The reason that the race data is put into a table is because of all the data, it is the only section that properly fits a tabular format. Does it make sense to display median age or percent urban vs rural as a table? Putting the race data in a table was very common on many pages well before I started making these edits. CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are a meant to be a few simple paragraphs on demographics, not the U.S. Census data. Please leave the original format. To reiterate, placing a table in a paragraph in order to replace the text that states the same statistics, is highly moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-13215-55 (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all the information in the demographics paragraphs for all US counties and municipalities come from the US Census. The information that I'm adding is consistent with what many such articles include, not just in their "2020 demographics" sections, but also in "2010 demographics" and even "2000 demographics". CyrusTheMediocre (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]