User talk:Kaltenmeyer

Henry Halliday (paediatrician)

Hi @Kaltenmeyer: That is newspaper, not a periodical. It is a British-English article. scope_creep^Talk 08:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Periodical is defined as "a magazine or newspaper published at regular intervals." A newspaper is a periodical.

Also there is this guidance at HELP:CS1 "The "publisher" parameter should not be included :for widely-known mainstream news sources, for major academic journals, or where it would be :the same or mostly the same as the work."

Kaltenmeyer (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Kaltenmeyer!

Happy New Year!

Kaltenmeyer,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One query

Hello! Thanks for doing this. Do u use any device or tool for doing it? Or, is it done manually? Haoreima (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I use Wikipedia:ReFill Kaltenmeyer (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of surgery -Roman surgery

There is no mention of surgical instruments in Roman Empire in the article history of surgery despite having its own article on Roman surgery.The further information is available in the talk page of roman surgical instruments. Ppppphgtygd (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caesian surgery by sushuruta

There is a claim that sushuruta conducted caesarian and prosthetic surgery but the reference given is poor. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5512402/ Issac Newton school (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Balmis Expedition

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Balmis Expedition, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher for Periodicals

I don't see the point of this edit where you just remove the name of the publisher from the reference (the other parts of the edit were good tho). You're just kind of removing information that kind of helps people better identify the source? I think the reason |publisher= is not often used for periodicals is because a lot of the times they have the same name as the work (New York Times Company is the the publisher of The New York Times). Either way, that part of the CS1 documentation is very much not prescriptive, and so I'd appreciate it if you restored the publisher information. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My view is that it is prescriptive, regardless of whether the publisher's name is similar to the publication name. Note the example of Gannett Corporation being incorrect for USA Today at Help:Citation_Style_1 The example of what should not be done is "|newspaper=USA Today|publisher=Gannett Company". This is the example that I am following. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayo thanks for fixing the problem i did in Highest grossing Bangladeshi film list.

Thanks for fixing the problem i did. THE SSS (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Gülüstan, Nakhchivan

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gülüstan, Nakhchivan, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ReferenceExpander

Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]