Talk:R gene

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is, for the most part, simply a repeat of that article. --Glubbdrubb (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Invasive Spices: Concerning your edit summary:

• Has been asked repeatedly by a large number of editors to stop. Also has been thanked by a signicantly larger number of editors.
• deceptive edit summaries My edit summary was completely accurate. There was a consistent citation style before your edit and I re-established it.
• Defaces the work of others First author initials in citations are widely used in scientific journals. So journals deface authors? ORCIDs were never intended to be used in citation templates the way that you are using. Furthermore it pollutes the meta data.
• without contributing to pages I have assisted in bringing several articles to
  HSP90, Nuclear receptor, Transcription factor, Partition coefficient
  , and many more.
• Uses a series of rolling excuses I have been quite consistent. Boghog (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) You have been thanked exclusively by editors with no familiarity with WP, who have thanked you for "informing" them that |vauthors= is the only lawful cite format and all others are deprecated.

2) You are obsessed with mass, automated removal of author information because you prefer it gone for some reason. This has long been recognized as (

WP:CITEVAR and WP:RFA/Sortan#Principles

) disruptive editing.

3) I have never seen you make a productive edit. Not one. I don't go into medical articles so it is possible that you are doing so in there, however in pest management and other agricultural topics you are exclusively obsessed with unproductive removal of data from {{cite}}s. If I go back as far as 2014 I can find some productive edits on these pages but you seem to have given up since then.

4) First it was the much more honest "tweak cites" edit summaries, then "consistent citations", then whatever... then you seized upon this "first major author" excuse which has never been true when the edit history is actually examined... I agree you've been consistent in obsessively removing author information, but as for excuses, they keep changing. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been thanked exclusively by editors with no familiarity with WP. Please see the barn stars on my page. Included are several awarded from Wikipedia administrators.

This has long been recognized as disruptive editing Please go back and carefully re-read

WP:CITEVAR

. In particular the section on "Generally considered helpful". imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles

I have never seen you make a productive edit. Please look at the links that I have provided above.

never been true when the edit history is actually examined Like STAT4 and TBX21 where I established the style? Boghog (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked through everything you've done or every barnstar you've received. What I was talking about: You have misinformed naive, new editors that |vauthors= is required on WP, and they have thanked you for what they assume to be valid information. Every other time it's one of us telling you we're not happy with your removal of author information. CITEVAR CITEVAR has several things in there including the "imposing" recommendation. Obviously that's not meant to be a cover story for someone who exclusively removes author information, and then edit wars over it. I want my contributions to WP to be usable - therefore I don't want anyone removing as much data from {{cite}}s as they think they can get away with.

• In one case I noticed a ref that had no DOI available. It had the rest of the fields correct but someone then incorrectly tried to add what they thought was the DOI. Then you came along and, because you don't make any effort to check your output, you simply run your bot to remove fields... the entire ref was replaced by whatever the DOI gave. Entirely incorrect, an entirely random other paper. So I took a stupidly long time fixing that.
• This is also important to avoid mis-repair by other bots. Recently I dealt with an (unrelated) case wherein a bot simply replaced one cite with another. This is less likely to happen the more fields are available for it to compare with.
• In several cases your bot has failed to remove author fields but did add a |vauthors=, or used the et al option while other data was added, which you didn't mean to do (I assume?), leaving a cite with a combination of several |vauthors=, |last#=, |first#=, etc, in the same template.
• Further your bot is entirely unfamiliar with |trans-title= and such and so always damages non-English sources.

You need to lose your madness for removing author information, simple as that. If that was it alone then that would be bad enough. However you've made it clear you are entirely unperturbed by the destruction your bot causes and object when anyone tries to fix it. That is the pattern that I was referring to in my edit summary - I don't want this article defaced by someone who runs in and out of articles doing the same mass, automated data removal they always do. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You have misinformed naive, new editors that |vauthors= is required on WP. When did I ever say that? Please provide a diff. Consistent with
  WP:CITEVAR
  , The only thing I suggested is that if Vancouver author style was already established in an article, it should be maintained.
• The bot assumes that the pre-existing doi, pmid, and pmc are correct. In very rare cases, it has accidentally substituted the wrong ref.
• leaving a cite with a combination of several |vauthors=, |last#=, |first#= I admit that occasionally happens. Recently I have been looking for CS1 errors in the preview to catch and eliminate those errors.
• Further your bot is entirely unfamiliar with |trans-title= and such and so always damages non-English sources.. Can you point to a single example where this happened, let alone always? Please provide a diff. Boghog (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Invasive Spices: Please note that per the {{cite journal}} documentation:
  • If the article is in a foreign language, and the original title is unknown, enclose the translated title in square brackets and use |title=. Otherwise use |title= for the foreign-language title and |trans-title= for the English-language title.
• If |trans-title= without |title= is used, an error message is generated (see Category:CS1 errors: translated title). The bots use of |title= with square brackets for foreign language sources is 100% correct, your use of |trans-title= without including the untranslated |title= is not. Boghog (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You are aware that this The bot assumes that the pre-existing doi, pmid, and pmc are correct. In very rare cases, it has accidentally substituted the wrong ref. is going on. You are violating the basics of
  WP:VERIFY - someone else has provided verification and you are falsifying it. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In very rare cases, someone else has provided a incorrect PMID, and the bot highlights the error. The history retains the original data and therefore the error can be corrected. The script can also modified to catch these sorts of errors through comparison of the update vs. original citation and flag citations where the similarity falls below a threshold. I will try to implement this. However please keep in mind Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology: There's always one more bug. No one and by extension, no human made invention is perfect. If the corrections of errors far exceeds the number of new errors introduced, then the script is useful. Boghog (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Your bot doesn't correct errors and is not intended to: It is intended to
  WP:VERIFYability adds up to... even more negative. No one contributes to these pages assuming someone is going to pop by, do some obscure damage they're obsessed with doing, and then run off to another few pages to do the same thing. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Invasive Spices: By including both |last-n=, |first-n=, and |author-n= to store ORCIDs in the same {{cite journal}} template as in this edit, you are generating a Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list error that needs to be corrected. Use |last-n=, |first-n= or |author-n=, but not both. Please stop using the |author-n= parameter in a way that was never intended. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PubMed provides a quick author search for each of the authors in a publication. For example,

Neither do WP:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2#Obsessional point of view or WP:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Banning of obsessive users. Are there tracking categories for those? There is a real need to correct those. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]