User talk:85.238.106.27

Cites
You should put 'Pat Ruff' into last=Pat Ruff (or, better, first=Pat, last= Ruff). Otherwise the article is added to Category:CS1 errors: missing name. Oculi (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * that's quite hard to be done manually. Would be great if you'd help me with some bot doing this. Besides there's sometimes no any name (even at "first" or "author" parameters) provided so there's nothing to even add to such "last" field instead of emails... And that exact case have no any solution about cite-template error popping up, so then I just ignore it. 85.238.106.27 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Email addresses in a citation does not violate WP:YELLOW. WP:YELLOW refers to the content in an article and doesn't speak to citations at all. I would recommend that you stop using WP:YELLOW in your edit summary. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what of WP:NOT, that, from my POV, obviously violated by published emails (if not YELLOW, but at least obviously with advertising authors of themselves) have I use to make such edits?85.238.106.27 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. if you will look closely you will clearly see that citations (including emails) are IN the text of article, that is indexed by search engines etc., so then it's clearly affected by WP:NOTYELLOW. If you have any controversial vision - feel free to introduce it. 85.238.106.27 (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the guideline here is referring to a directory, as in WP is not a directory, as in it's not like a yellow pages: Nor should listings such as the white or yellow pages be replicated, or an article should not look like a yellow pages page. Having one email address in the citation information is not applicable here, which is why you should look at WP:CITE for further guidelines on citations. WP:NOT almost entirely refers to content rather than citations, which is why "citation" is mentioned only once on the entire page. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite I'm not agree with you about citations are not the part of the text, and therefore is exactly covered by WP:NOT, including fact emails that way can be published at same article, I understand your vision about probably edit failure tagging, but where can we discuss it on broader audience to find a consensus? Also you are not focusing fact emails being filled into fields "last"/"last1"/"first"/"author" of template:cite, that are obviously not intended for such type of information as email (or full address or phone number - type of information sometimes have place there too) and there's NO any field at abouve mentioned template called "email", that way here's obviously template use violation/abuse present and it have to be deleted any way regardless edit tagging. 85.238.102.237 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no need for consensus on this. Wikipedia is not a repository of contacts like a Yellow Pages. One email address in one citation here in no way, shape, or form, can be construed as a repository. Keep fixing what you are fixing, but I am asking that you stop using WP:YELLOW in the edit summary, as it is mischaracterizing your edits. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly clear that email addresses should not be in cites. There is a guideline (see Category:CS1 maint: location) that location= in cites should not include specific addresses such as zip codes, and a cite error is generated. In any case first= and last= are supposed to be the first name and surname of the author. (My only point is that an error message is generated if first= has an entry and last= is empty.) Oculi (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 100% agree. Other users who added those citations with emails in the last name parameter should not have done that. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, we have "3-way" consensus about my actions (edits) but what about tagging? What exact tagging have I use for such edits? If not WP:YELLOW, then what? Here's clearly said it's better use then not to use edit 'meaningful' edit comments. Otherwise (including fact my edits are anonymous that "affect" someone to treat them differently from registered's ones) it can be almost for sure perceived by others as vandal edits. Any ideas? 85.238.102.237 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would literally just say "Removing improper citation parameters" or something like that. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will use your option there until any other offers will appear. 85.238.102.237 (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that's totally fine; again, some other user improperly added the citation info. You are just fixing that. Thanks again for your edits, other editors really should know better (part of me thinks this is some auto-generate citation error). --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer thinking same way, however it's obviously was done consciously for, even dividing different types of information between these two fields always appeared first at citation string, for it to be displayed in the correct order. I'd better also do it automated way (that will do it both faster and more qualitative), but, as I see, according to Wikipedia rules I can't use any automation while making edits until I have my own registered bot, and I won't have it ever as I don't want to register and anonymous user can't hold a bot (as I got what rules says). Will continue do it all (I already found more then 500 more articles with same issue and that is not final search result) manually. 85.238.102.237 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You are quite right: eg diff. Seems to be Refill. Oculi (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)