User talk:Pavlo Chemist

Welcome!

Hello, Pavlo Chemist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Welcome again
Thanks for welcoming yourself. (Usually the hello-template is used by somebody other than the new user.) But rest assured that other users do hope you like the place and decide to stay. So, again, welcome.--ospalh (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I know this, but when I have created "User talk" page, I have had no idea about this and I have thought that it should be created by user himself. :) --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

On fixing redirects
I've seen that you've started to fix redirects. For example in the Møller–Plesset perturbation theory and Fullerene articles. The first one is a good fix, it changes the displayed text to the correct version. (With a hyphen, '-', and an n-dash, '–'.) Thanks for that. The case is slightly different with the 'fullerene' case. In a way that fix was correct, too, so there is no need to undo it. But it was unnecassary, and there is a policy that you don't need to (or even should not) fix redirects that aren't broken. In this case i did actually decide to link to the redirect instead to the correct article title, because the source looks neater, ' ... resembles a soccer ball of the type... ' versus ' ... resembles a soccer ball of the type ... '

In summary, thanks, there is nothing to change, and you can save a little work by not fixing redirects unless it improves the displayed text.--ospalh (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for advice. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for putting the Nobel prize winner into the portal today. I went to do this before bed, and was relieved to see you'd beaten me to it. I just wrote a short Wikinews piece which is marked for review now, hopefully that will come out soon. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear power in Germany — currency, concision and contrast
Respectfully, your edits remove both the concision/cogency and the current relevancy of the lead sentence. I don't mind admitting I don't understand the distinction — are you asserting that there is something relevant about the percent consumed versus the percent generated? If that is so, it might be helpful to place into context further down in the article, but certainly not out of context and in the lead sentence. Is there neither a source nor a mathematical way of arriving at the actual percentage of what those plants that have not been closed have provided these last three months and in the short term forward? That number belongs in the first sentence, the number for the corresponding metric prior to March can be elsewhere in the lead, and the explanation of the distinction between metrics perhaps in the body. And I do think the metric we should be using in the lead is consumption rather than production, though if there is some reason for the opposite, I would be open to hearing it. I invite your response at Talk:Nuclear power in Germany rather than here or at my own talk, for the purposes of clarity and article improvement. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot request
Hi. Have we met in Kyiv during Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2014? You seem to be quite active in the project. I wanted to clear something since you are obviously an experienced editor. Of course, we need more bots and more bot operators and I am happy that you step in for this. But, every bot should have some tasks and then pile on. I think you chance is to follow the BOTREQ and when there is a task that suits you, call it yours, then fill a BRFA and then start pilling on with other tasks. There is no rush that you get a bot flag right now. I try to keep the bot flags low for both security and efficiency reasons. I recently asked many bot flags to be removed due to inactivity. So, stay around and you ll certainly find a way to help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, no, I did not participate in that meeting. I have been mostly active in Ukrainian Wikipedia. I understand your point concerning bots policy, it makes sense for English Wikipedia with so numerous community and such a huge number of articles. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I see already an orphan task that involves 50,000 pages: Bot_requests. I wonder if you could do something about it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Magioladitis for pointing out that request to me. I looked at it and tested my bot (without writing changes, of course) and the task seems to be doable. Nevertheless, before making changes there are some points to clarify. For instance, in the original request, there were mentioned only some of the identifiers ("HDL, PMC, PMID, JSTOR, or DOI"), while there are many more than those. I did not find what is meant under "HDL", but anyway, I do not think that it is useful to keep "accessdate" even if, for instance, doi exists, as usually such identifiers have a fixed link that is unchanged. In addition, it seems that Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration adds pages to the Category:Pages with archiveurl citation errors, only if there is no url regardless whether identifiers are provided. While tesing my bot, I came across pages, that have url, but in wrong places (without parameter "|url=" at all or in "|title="), so probably we have to leave those pages with "http" and "www" in the template unchanged as such cases have to be checked by a human. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please comment directly in BOTREQ so that we get more feedback. If you are satisfied by the answers and the task has consensus you can fill a new BRFA to do it. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For the help you provided me in the Ukrainian Wikipedia!

Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC) 
 * That's cute, thanks! --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Max Planck Institutes
Category:Max Planck Institutes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 10:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for notifying. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)