User talk:589q

Welcome!

Hello, 589q, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down with the grammar fixes. Many of the "the" inserting, and some other changes you are making, lead to incorrect change of meaning. In English, not every noun needs a definite article. DMacks (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks Many thanks for sharing your profound knowledge of English. However, I still believe it is After the repeal in 1933 instead of After repeal in 1933. By the way, in the sentence you wrote above, it should be "lead to an incorrect change of meaning" or "lead to incorrect changes of meaning". Apparently, articles play a more crucial role in the English I speak than yours.589q (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one that caught my eye was [1]. Presumably Paracelsus meant any fire in general, not one specific case of it. DMacks (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks I would consider "fire" a collective noun here, and thus, it needs a definite article.589q (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volume = 0 in citations

Please stop adding volume=0 additions to citations, for example as you did in this diff, this one and possibly many more. The Journal of the Chemical Society did not use volume numbers at that time and your edits are therefore disruptive. You can check the correct citations by clicking on the doi quoted and looking to the right of the RSC page which appears. Did you not consider that a volume number of zero was a rather unlikely value? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull Thanks for letting me know. That was a mistake!589q (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quickly admitting the mistake. Now can I educate you in a couple of other things? You just made this helpful addition of a PMID. However, while you were working there you might have noticed that the full article is freely accessible from its doi. So adding the parameter |doi-access=free would have also helped our readers. Likewise, you could have deleted the URL to the same doi that someone had previously entered along with an access-date. DOI don't need access dates, they are stable, in principle, forever. So compare what I did just after you in this diff: your work would have been much more useful if you had fully tidied up that reference to its current state. Do, however, keep up your editing — you are clearly trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're also adding |issue=0, e.g. [2][3], which is surely erroneous. Kanguole 17:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the correction! 589q (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding incorrect parameter

Hi there! I see you've been adding the |issue= parameter to {{cite journal}} templates. In some edits like this one to Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, those templates already have the information in the |number= parameter, which is an alias for |issue=. Doing so displays the error More than one of |number= and |issue= specified and puts the article in Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter. I'm working on cleaning these up now, but please be careful in the future and use the "Show preview" button before you publish your changes. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention. 589q (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issue - you're adding the |arxiv= parameter to {{cite journal}} templates that already have the value in the |eprint= parameter (e.g. this edit to Armadillo (C++ library)). Again, please use the "Show preview" button before you publish your changes to confirm that your changes are not causing errors. GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another version - adding |pages= to {{cite journal}} templates that already have a value in the |at= parameter (e.g. this edit to Blood Falls). GoingBatty (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another version - adding |pmc= to {{cite journal}} templates that already have a value in the |PMC= parameter (e.g. this edit to Flow-mediated dilation). GoingBatty (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another version - adding |pages= to {{cite journal}} templates that already have a value in the |pp= parameter (e.g. this edit to Western American English). GoingBatty (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty, thanks for highlighting the issue. I learned a lot. I didn't know |at= can be used in lie of |page=/|pages=. 589q (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty, I found out that I had not read Template:Cite_journal thoroughly! 589q (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the same arxiv Id to many articles

What are you doing and why are you doing it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman, it was a mistake but not mine. I carelessly followed the mistake. arXiv has listed the wrong DOI here [4], but I was unable to find duplicates as you mentioned. 589q (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I see [!].

I can see now that I'm using a bigger screen that there is no duplication, just a coincidental similarity with one you added to another article I'm watching. Another perfectly good conspiracy theory turns out yet again to be a cock-up. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman, "why are you doing it?" made the conspiracy theory quite exciting! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. When you use the official resources, you soon get bored of double-checking as everything seems fine and there is no discrepancy to be discovered. And then, you find out ... 589q (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your disconsolation below, perhaps I should make clear my acceptance of the cockup as unambiguously my cockup, less obviously a Worldcat cockup but certainly not your cockup. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi -- welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for all your help. I've seen you on my watchlist a lot lately, and I might recommend you start using edit summaries more consistently. It's often a harder practice for new editors to get into -- it took me a few months to get the hang of it myself -- but it's really useful to other editors who are seeing an edit on their watchlist. If they know it's just fixing a reference, they don't have to worry, but if they're not sure what the edit is, they have to check each individual edit to make sure it's not someone vandalising or otherwise making problematic changes. Vaticidalprophet 12:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidal, thanks for your warm welcome! I usually include a summary in my edits, but sometimes I miss it. I will pay more attention not to forget it in the future :) 589q (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Your last 8 edits to articles did not have an edit summary. I suggest you go to your preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and click the box that states "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some correct some incorrect

Hello I have found that some of your automated additions are correct but one was not. I recommend not continuing. Correct: [5][6][7][8][9][10], Incorrect: [11]. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices, no, it is correct. Check here [12]. The ISSN is correct, WorldCat to which Wikipedia is linking is incorrect. 589q (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Strange. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: Compare https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=n2%3A0066-4197 with https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=n2%3A0066-4170 for more info. GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Invasive Spices, by the way, I don't mind stopping to add the missing information. I just want to help. This case was not incorrect, but even if you find a mistake in my edits, I think it is not reasonable to deprive Wikipedia of tons of useful information I may add to the references because of a few possible mistakes (which are usually reflections of errors in the official sources, as explained on my user page). Surely, we should do our best to avoid mistakes, but I think the basic principle of Wikipedia is to correct each other's mistakes rather than be idle because of possible mistakes. 589q (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes adding this information - even if incorrect - would not be harmful. However if information is accidentally removed or falsified you may not notice - WP:BOTLIKE. Your edits are your edits. I have seen other editors consistently refuse responsibility for their unregistered bots. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices, it's not a bot per se, and as you can see throughout this page, I always take full responsibility for my edits. I really appreciate that you came here to share your thoughts with me. 589q (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does it's not a bot per se actually mean? I notice (to take just one example) that your account made twelve edits logged at 20:10 on 10 January. No human editor could possibly have made these additions that fast. I'm not necessarily implying that you are doing anything wrong but bots do have to be used carefully. WP:BOTPOL, for example, says that separate accounts should be created for each bot. I think that this is what Invasive Spices, GoingBatty and I are worried about (see our other posts on your Talk Page). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull, I could build a bot, but it was neither my intention nor plan. I just built a custom interface on top of the Wikipedia API. Since I had access to the publications through a local project, I was able to quickly extract the missing information. The mistakes you referred to, as discussed above, are human mistakes as I openly acknowledged. A bot would probably not make them. The ratio of my mistakes to the information I added is very much lower than the percentage of existing mistakes in Wikipedia. Therefore, if I had continued doing the same mistakes (with no improvement), the overall percentage of errors in Wikipedia would be reduced. By any standard for bot or human, the number of mistakes in comparison with the essential information added to the references was negligible, not a basis for concern. I presumed making the references throughout Wikipedia complete is a major contribution. This is why I put a lot of effort to champion this milestone. I didn't aim to create concern for others. Evidently, I was wrong; Wikipedia is better of with gradual evolution through diverse contributions. I am happy to enjoy reading Wikipedia as I did in the past years. 589q (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't split hairs about the difference between a bot and a custom interface interacting directly with the API. What you are adding is mostly fine but do be prepared to explain things to other editors who may query some of the additions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull, I gave up editing. None of the mistakes I made was harmful (just adding redundant information), which were less than 1% of my edits and over 99% was essential edits (correcting wrong IDs, adding PMC ID linking to the article full-text, etc). If I was paid to do this job, still, I wouldn't deserve this level of criticism for this output. 589q (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've chosen to give up editing, and hope you'll reconsider. I never looked at your work in total, just the amount of articles appearing in Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter. We're all just volunteers trying to improve Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty, thanks for your supportive words! This section is entirely around the idea that I am an unregistered bot. What is the Wikipedia policy on unregistered bots? This means, regardless of my contributions, an administrator always has the right to ban me permanently because my activity was against the rules in the first place. 589q (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on unregistered bots is within the link I supplied, specifically in this section. Note that I am not an administrator and have no intention of curtailing your activities: I have already said that I think that you are trying to improve the encyclopaedia. The only question is whether some of your edits are incorrect and require the effort of other editors to roll them back. That was certainly the case for those where you were adding volume or issue numbers of "0". (In passing, the correct entry for those edits would have been a database null, as adding "|volume=" or "|issue=" would have done no damage to the citations in question.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]