User talk:Maxim Masiutin/Archives/2024/January

Template order

FYI, the SD template should be the first one. When adding the CS1 template it should be near the end of the list. See MOS:ORDER for details. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will change the order of the articles that I'm editing. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For helping to improve Wikipedia's medical content with a focus on sourcing Bon courage (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, still, I don't yet feel I fully deserve this award. I try to understand sourcing differences, but I'm not a professional medical person, so would you mind if I sometimes ask you to evaluate whether some sources are appropriate for some claims? For example, I added today a section Vancomycin#Research directions. As I get more experienced in sourcing, I will ask for your help not that often as now. I will make a section on the talk page about the research directions, if you have time, please reply there. Still, I am very happy with the award, even if I am incompetent yet, I think that your hope that I will improve will motivate me. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You know how to identify sources and are helping to improve things. Nobody has to be perfect and editors (even medical editors) will disagree. But when disagreements are based on reasonable sourcing that's worthwhile discussion! Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Barnstar

Top 10	Top 10 Medical Editor Barnstar 2023
	You were one of the top medical editors on English Wikipedia in 2023. Thank you for your hard work! -Mvolz (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the award! I am very proud for that, really! It was a great pleasure and great surprise that my medical contributions got appreciated! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Bot problem?

Is there a problem with the bot that you're using? Many of your edit summaries today consist of Put the {{Short description}} template first as prescribed by MOS:ORDER. repeated over and over and over until it fills the space allowed. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I've also noticed that. Just a few minutes before you contacted, the issue got resolved. Thank you very much again for pointing your attention. And sorry for these edit summaries :-( Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Cite -> cite by bot

Hi Maxim. My watchlist has recently been filled up with edits from (presumably) your bot, like this one. I thought that WP:COSMETICBOT advises against making changes like that which have no clear benefit to our readers. Is the bot you are using doing something useful in addition, or just making these changes? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 for this concern. Please do not do this unless as part of an edit that has other actual benefits for readers or editors. DMacks (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in knowing what bot or other tool you are using...it seems beyond hand-editing, and this specific change is not one of the standard set I've seen explicitly mentioned in other tools. DMacks (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello friend. I noticed you're changing {{Cite}} to {{cite}} on multiple articles. Are you sure this is correct? Just like article names, template names are always capitalized. For example, Template:Cite. In fact, I don't think it's possible to create a template called Template:cite. The software will force it to be capitalized. Therefore I think that template names should always be capitalized, and that they should not be mass de-capitalized. Please consider reverting your edits. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm coming here to say please don't clutter people's watchlists with edits like this where you change "cite" to "Cite", which makes no difference to the article as seen by the reader. There are many important things in the encyclopedia which need to be corrected, but consistency in capitalisation of templates is not one of them. PamD 19:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull:@DMacks:@Novem Linguae:@PamD: Thank you very much for bringing this issue to my attention, and sorry for the late reply!

I apologize for any inconvenience or annoyance I may have caused you with my edits. I was using a simple replacement script that automatically changes {{Cite}} to {{cite}} in articles, as I thought that this would make the template names more consistent and easier to read. But it turned to be out that I was wrong, sorry. I was not aware of the WP:COSMETICBOT guideline that advises against making such changes, as they do not affect the readers or the quality of the encyclopedia. I have read the guidelines and the WP:BOT policy, and I understand why my edits were considered inappropriate and disruptive. I sincerely apologize for that, sorry.

Would you please forgive me if I do not revert my edits? Initially I believed that they are not harmful or erroneous and that they follow the examples given on the template help pages, such as Template:Cite web, where the template name is shown in lowercase. But since they already done their harm by polluting that changelog / watch list, reverting those edits will pollute that once again. So may I just keep that as is but would not do further edits like that? I mean that I will not make any further edits using this script unless there will be solid reasons for a replacement of {{Cite}} to {{cite}}. Still, should I edit, I will also respect the existing uppercase or lowercase use pattern in the articles, and only make changes to the template case if there is a big substantive change on the page that has other benefits for the readers or the editors. I will also avoid making changes that are too intrusive or unnecessary, and that may clutter the watchlists or the edit histories. For example, if most templates are in lowercase and only a few in uppercase, I will replace these few entries, but if most are in uppercase, I will respect the existing use pattern and will not be intrusive and will keep that existing way of the use of the case.

I sincerely apologize for any trouble or confusion that I may have caused to you or to other editors with my edits. I appreciate your patience and cooperation, and I hope to learn from my mistakes and contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive and responsible way in the future. Thank you.

As for the discussion on which of the cases should be used, let us preserve the existing use pattern for each article and only change it if a few templates fall outside the existing use pattern. In favor of the lowercase use, one argument for using lowercase {{cite}} instead of uppercase {{Cite}} is that it follows the convention of using lowercase letters for template parameters, such as |title=, |url=, |access-date=, etc. This makes the template names more consistent and easier to read, and avoids confusion with template shortcuts, such as {{R}}, {{S}}, {{C}}, etc., which are usually capitalized. Another argument for using lowercase {{cite}} is that it matches the examples given on the template help pages, such as [[Template:Cite web]], where the template name is shown in lowercase. These examples are meant to illustrate the proper usage and syntax of the templates, and they are often copied and pasted by editors who want to cite sources. Therefore, it makes sense to follow the examples and use lowercase {{cite}} in the articles. However, to comply with the [[WP:COSMETICBOT]] rule, I understand that these changes should not be the changes per se, but only if there is a big substantive change on the page, an additional citation case tweak would be appropriate, and only in this case. The reason for this is that cosmetic changes to templates do not affect the readers or the quality of the encyclopedia, and they may cause unnecessary edits, revisions, and watchlist entries, which may clutter the system and annoy other editors. I understand that such changes should only be made as part of a larger edit that has other benefits, such as adding, removing, or correcting information, fixing errors, improving readability, etc. Moreover, I understand, as I mentioned earlier, that the changes should not be too intrusive. This means that the existing uppercase or lowercase use pattern in the page should be preserved. Let me reiterate this important point: for example, if the page has almost all templates {{cite}} in lowercase, and only a few in uppercase {{Cite}}, then those uppercase can be changed to lowercase. But if most are in uppercase, they should not be forcefully changed to lowercase by an editor such as me. The reason for this is that changing the case of the templates may disrupt the editing history and the preferences of the previous editors, who may have used a certain case for a reason, such as following a style guide, a citation format, or a personal choice. Therefore, such changes should respect the existing pattern and avoid making unnecessary or unwanted alterations.

I contribute to the development of the citation bot, you can see me on the discussion about the citation bot on its Wikipedia talk page at User_talk:Citation_bot and on GitHub at [1] , but in this case of lowercase {{cite}}, I didn't use the citation bot, it was just a pure replacement script, not a bot tool. I used a pure replacement script to change {{Cite}} to {{cite}} in the articles, and without taking into account existing use patterns, as I thought that this would make the template names more consistent and easier to read. However, I now realize that this was a mistake, and that I should not have done that. I will not do such replacements in the future, except when there are very solid reasons to make such replacements, such as fixing a typo, a broken link, or a formatting error, or adding a bibcode or correcting date format or other citation attributes.

Thank you for your involvement, and I am sorry for my edits. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. A similar issue where some editors make unnecessary, watch-list-cluttering, changes is that of whether a heading should have spaces before and after the text - ie ==Something== or == Something ==. Here there seems no established rule as to which is "correct" (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Spaces in section headings), but that doesn't stop editors from changing in both directions.

Even when an edit to a page is justified because something needs to be changed, making unnecessary changes at the same time such as the case of Cite/cite means that the conscientious editor with that page on their watch list has a long list of changes to scan, rather than just the important change, so I would prefer such tidying-up not to be made. Consistency of template case simply does not matter. PamD 08:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I am paranoid on these whitespace characters, and I'm removing all extra spaces so that I'm virtually "compressing" space. Still, I do that only if I edit an article for substance. I don't edit whitespaces solely for that only purpose, because I understand that there should everything be the limit. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to discuss a proposal on improving citation bot: User_talk:Citation_bot#RCE. Please let me know what you think on it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 1 hour for please visit your talk page and address WP:COSMETICBOT issues before resuming editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and attention. I'm now fixing pages that are in the hidden "error-like" category [[Category:CS1 maint: overridden setting|Category:CS1 maint: overridden setting]]. It was Trappist the monk who pointed that out that my edits sometimes move pages to this category. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Society_for_Virology#c-Trappist_the_monk-20240125192200-Maxim_Masiutin-20240125190100

Please do not consider these edits as WP:COSMETICBOT. If you still consider these edits that fix pages and remove them from this category as inappropriate, please let me know and I will stop removing pages from this category.

@Mike Turnbull:@DMacks:@PamD: - your opinion is also welcome. Thank you! Sorry for bothering. If you no longer interesting in discussing these page-category issues, let me know. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

When making mass edits, please keep an eye on your user talk page. I think four of us posted concerns last time yet the editing continued for 6 hours. If you make that small adjustment, should be in good shape. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you, will do! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason based on this edit today. How does this not violate WP:COSMETICBOT? The change you're making clearly does not affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia unless there's something I'm not understanding. If you think this change is important to make, why don't you describe your plans at BRFA so they can be discussed and approved? If they already have been, super, just link that in your edit summaries so folks can understand what you're doing. Ajpolino (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to add, I understand you're removing articles from Category:CS1 maint: overridden setting. But a BRFA (or other) discussion would help get consensus on whether that's worth doing. Emptying a maintenance category isn't always very useful. And the point of COSMETICBOT is that tiny-but-real improvement of a non-visible issue should be weighed against the small-but-real inconvenience of everyone reviewing your edit when they see it on their watchlists. Ajpolino (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I almost cleared this category, but if you don't like that, I will not continue, as I see that there is clearly no consensus on whether this category should be cleared. I understand your concern regarding the edit made today and the violation of WP:COSMETICBOT. However, it is important to note that the change made is not cosmetic in nature. Although it does affect the readability of the article, as you pointed out, the change is aimed at removing articles from Category:CS1 maint: overridden setting. While emptying a maintenance category may not seem useful, it is important to keep the category up-to-date to ensure that the articles in it are properly maintained. Otherwise, these maintenance categories would have lost sense. Still, if you don't think it's a good idea, then I won’t continue. I regret that the category will be left with just a few pages. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your desire to clear that maintenance category – I understand it comes from a sincere desire to help – but I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. There are hundreds of maintenance categories. They will never be empty. Many of them are for issues that readers will actually notice, and are arguably (inarguably?) more important. Consider this: if Category:CS1 maint: overridden setting is never cleared, what will happen? Some articles will have redundant indicators of how many author names go before the "et al.", and the encyclopedia will be exactly the same, right? Your efforts will no doubt have a greater impact focused on another maintenance category. Perhaps I can interest you in something at Wikipedia:Backlog? The list of medicine articles with maintenance tags? Or an old rainy day favorite of mine Category:Articles_with_dead_external_links? Ajpolino (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you feel it's important to make these cosmetic edits, and those of us commenting about it here are not appropriately appreciating the importance, just start a discussion at BRFA or a Village Pump. If there's a consensus to make these edits, then folks will stop bothering you. Ajpolino (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ajpolino ok, let me do that Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I still object to you changing the capitalization of cite templates en masse, and I thought you were going to stop doing this. But here's another diff from today. You are WP:FAITACCOMPLI pushing through your preferred capitalization without consensus. I will escalate to a noticeboard if this does not stop. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

After the initial discussion, I only changed that in the articles when there was majority of citations in lowercase and a minority in uppercase, to achieve consistency when there was already almost all citations in lowercase. But since you didn't like that, I will stop altogether. Does that make sense. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Maybe I stop (which I already did) and then start a discussion st BRFA as suggested by another editor here, and I will invite you to that discussion? if there will be a consensus, I will finish cleaning this category? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Usually you want to get consensus somewhere first, and then file a brfa. A good spot to discuss and get consensus for these changes might be Help talk:Citation Style 1. Yes, feel free to ping me to a discussion about this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae thank you for your help, I will start there first (at Help talk:Citation Style 1). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Be careful

You seem to be making lots of edits to references. Or maybe you are part of a robot collaboration. In any case, no one seems to be complaining about format of references in chemistry space, so I am unsure why you are doing this. Second thing is that some book series are referenced as journal by custom in chemistry. If one just follows the template-filling bot, one gets less useful reference. You and your nonchemical collaborators might not have insights that allow you to understand these niceties. So, that is another reason to slow down or ask around before bulldozing a lot of stuff around. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Smokefoot Thank you for pointing that out. Can you please give a few diff examples of what went wrong, so that we could fix the software at https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot

this is a citation expander available as a widget in user preference. It is a standard tool offered by Wikipedia to all users via the settings, so if it does something wrong, let us fix it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that the citation expander sometimes added attributes to books that some editors didn't like, but I noticed that it was in some cases where other people besides me did such edits with the citation expander in the past like I did, so there is clear some issues with the citation expander on some books. I would like to know more information on that. I will contact the editors who didn't like (rollback) a couple of such of my edits in the past. It was just about two or three of such edits. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering what your motivation is for removing the display-authors limitation in references, such as in this edit and numerous other articles. Long author lists increase character space in an article (reducing non-informative characters is favored and presents a cleaner reference section), and are of no use to the general user, for whom the content and sources are intended - see WP:MEDMOS, Writing for the wrong audience. Zefr (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

When the display-authors limitation is set in the main template "cs1 config", this setting applies to all citation, there is no need to set it additionally in each citation if it is already set in the "cs1 config". Additionally, if it is set in both config and individual citation, the articles goes to the "error"/"warning" category "CS1 maint: overridden setting". My edits fix this problem and remove pages from this "CS1 maint: overridden setting" category. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If you refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metformin&diff=prev&oldid=1199492873 then the page already has "{{cs1 config |name-list-style=vanc |display-authors=6}}", so if we duplicate "name-list-style=vanc" or "display-authors=6" in each individual "{{cite}}", then the page will go to the error category, "CS1 maint: overridden setting", as you can see. Before my edit, the page was in "CS1 maint: overridden setting". My edit removed the page from this category. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Androgen backdoor pathway

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Androgen backdoor pathway you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Boghog -- Boghog (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! If you find some issues that will make the article not satisfy the GA criteria, please give me a day or to to fix them, I have time now to do that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Modafinil

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Modafinil you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tea with toast -- Tea with toast (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tea with toast Thank you, great news! If you will have serious objections and conclude that the article doesn't match the GA criteria, don't mark it as "fail" straight away please, give me a day or two to fix everything, I have time at the moment to fix any eventual issues. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm mostly finished with the review, but still have a few sections to review. I've left a "to do" list on the GA talk page so that you can get started with some of them. Tea with toast (話) 01:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I already resolved all the items that you left in the todo. Looking forward for further information from you. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)