User talk:Cngzz1

May 2023
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Banach space have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Banach space was changed by Cngzz1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.959085 on 2023-05-16T13:39:04+00:00

Hi! I noticed you recently marked a lot of edits as minor that shouldn't have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia: it means a superficial edit that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word, which includes adding references. See Help:Minor edit for more information. Nonetheless, thanks for your edits. — W.andrea (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * By the way, I should add that I cleaned up your edit on Covariance and contravariance (computer science). See Help:References and page numbers for info on that. — W.andrea (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * Thank you for your constructive feedback. I will refer to the Help:References and page numbers as provided.
 * All the best.
 * Cngzz1 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * Thank you for your constructive feedback and gratitude. I will be more careful with the use of "Minor edit" in my edits.
 * All the best.
 * Cngzz1 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Carey & Sundberg organic-chemistry ref
It's a great advanced-level text. But many of the places you are adding it as a ref, there are already one or more refs that seem equally high quality. It's getting the feel of WP:REFSPAM or undue deference to a single source. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Excessive linking in general
Hi. I see that you have recently started editing articles in Wikipedia and most of your contributions have been adding links and references. At least in some of the mathematics articles that I have looked at and am more familiar with, the amount of linking that has been added has sometimes been excessive and inappropriate in my opinion. I wanted to explain why I have reverted your edit to quotient space (topology) in particular, taking that as an example to illustrate the general principles.

A good starting point is MOS:OVERLINK: A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. and also [Note 2] from that paragraph: A 2015 study of log data found that "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention."

More specifically for mathematics, more advanced concepts build upon more basic concepts. Each article lives within a certain context and each article is assuming a particular level of understanding from its readers, and as readers progress in their understanding, they become better able to grasp more advanced articles. Each article has a specific audience level and can have links to other articles that are at the same level or one level down if can describe it that way, but adding links to the extreme bottom level of the conceptual hierarchy is not helpful.

To illustrate with an example, somebody looking at quotient space may need a refresher on what a topological space is, and there is a link to that. Perfect. But if someone has no clue what a topology is, they have no point trying to understand the notion of "quotient topology"; they should first study topological spaces in general. In other words, people who don't know anything about topology are not part of the audience for the article "quotient space". On the other hand, people who know about topology necessarily know about sets and subsets in general, as they are some of the fundamental concepts used to describe even the most basic notions of topology. Therefore adding a link to subset like you did was unnecessary. It just clutters the article and dilutes its focus. (And on the other hand, adding a link to "set" and "subset" in the topological space article would be perfectly appropriate there, as the target audience is different.)

In other words, following the guideline and the quote above from MOS:OVERLINK, for every single link we want to add we should ask ourselves if the new link is going to help for the target audience of the article specifically.

There were other problems with your changes that we can talk about separately and that prompted me to revert, but we can discuss it separately. One main issue I had was this overlinking in your various edits. But please let me know what you think.

Regards PatrickR2 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * Thanks for your feedback, I'll keep this in mind. Please let me know if you want to revert other articles as well.
 * Regards Cngzz1 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to revert anything. Just wanted to explain the general principles about not overlinking.  And some of the links and references you are adding are useful.
 * A few more things about links that you may find useful. As explained in Help:Link and MOS:PIPESTYLE, wikilinks are case sensitive, except for the first letter.  So for example something like   and   both link to the same "Open set" page, and display as capitalized or not capitalized respectively.  There is no reason to do something like.
 * Also as explained there about plural (and other endings), don't do something like .  Just use   and notice how the plural ending is automatically incorporated into the link.
 * Also, there is something very useful called the "pipe trick", see Help:Pipe_trick and Help:Link that is worth familiarizing oneself with. In particular, if there is text in parentheses at the end of a target, it will automatically be removed from the display.  So instead of , use   with a single pipe before the closing brackets.  This is extremely useful and is actually the reason why many article titles that need disambiguation end up with a qualifier in parentheses.
 * Hope that helps. PatrickR2 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * Thanks for your constructive feedback and advice, that was very helpful.
 * Regards Cngzz1 (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agile software development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Object-oriented analysis. 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) 06:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Short form refa
Hi Cngzz1. I've just corrected some errors you caused in Business requirements, Program management, and Spring Framework. You may not have been able to see the error messages, as they are off by default. You can find out how to turn them on here. Basically whenever you use a short form ref (e.g. sfn or one of the harv templates) you must all supply a fully formatted cite for it to link with. There are still three cites missing from Spring Framework, "Johnson 2004" and "Walls 2018". There are cites for Johnson but no 2004 work, and works for Walls dated 2016 and 2019 bug no 2018. Could you add the correct cites to the Bibliography section, or let me know what works these refer to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Actively Disinterested,
 * Thank you for your message. You're absolutely right. For "Johnson 2004" I missed the author name "Hoeller". For "Wall 2018" it should be 2019. I'll review the changes you made and review the citations I've made previously. Thank you once again.
 * Regards,
 * Cngzz1 Cngzz1 (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but there's still no "Johnson & Hoeller 2004". Is this the same as "Johnson, Hoeller, Arendsen & Risberg 2005" (Professional Java Development with the Spring Framework)? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for updating me. I think it should be "Expert One-on-One J2EE™ Development without EJB™", ISBN = 0-7645-5831-5 ISBN-13: 978-0-7645-5831-3, Published 2004. It says Rod Johnson and Juergen Hoeller on the page with the ISBN. Cngzz1 (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've setup the cite. It can be done automatically if you have an ISBN number. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks ActivelyDisinterested. Cngzz1 (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

please stop adding "unreferenced section" banners indiscriminately
Hi Cngzz1,

While the "unreferenced section" banner can be helpful for calling out dubious sections of pages that seem like original research, In my opinion they are not really that helpful to splatter across every section of articles about basic topics found in introductory level textbooks that just happen to not have sufficient references in them yet (often because those sections were written 10+ years ago, when common Wikipedia standards for referencing were a bit more lax).

If you are concerned about a specific section, feel free to add these banners (sparingly). But please don't just dump them everywhere you possibly can. In my opinion they are an eyesore, I would expect often confusing to readers, and my experience is that they frankly don't accomplish much.

All the best, –jacobolus (t) 09:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, this tag-bombing is pointless, and help neither readers nor editors. Consequently I have reverted a number of your edits.  If you had used the time you spent adding 100 tags to instead add 1 appropriate reference to 1 article, that would have been much more valuable.  --JBL (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)