User talk:AmandaDarlingInc

Bot?[change source]

First of all, how am I a bot?

Second, do you intend to fix all the errors you added to the article Opossum. As every reference you added has multiple problems, your additions have led to the article being placed in more than one error category and needing significant attention to remove all the incorrect information you added to the article. Your edit was reverted, by a person, after it was determined it added more that was incorrect than correct. Pure Evil (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary said "Reverted to revision 8337689 by Citation bot". I think this was misunderstood to mean a bot was involved in the revert. Kk.urban (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see now, that is what happened, thank you! Is that why the critique was cryptically spelled? 2600:1700:4671:B00:20B1:DAE6:545A:223 (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The misspelling was by a person. They chose to undo your edit. It just so happened that the previous edit before yours was by a bot, so that's what it was reverted to. Kk.urban (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh weird ok I gotcha. It was like reading alphabet salad. I watched like hours of tutorials and editing stuff before and while I was doing this, which was my first one. It’s sort of comforting that the entropy of failure and misunderstanding is always there for us lol 2600:1700:4671:B00:20B1:DAE6:545A:223 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the errors on the page. Now, the next thing is to make sure the writing is in Simple English. I will try to get other people to help with that, as I'm not that good at it myself. It would help if you logged into your account so you could see notifications more easily. Kk.urban (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused, as I stated the only message I got said revered by a bot and had very weird spelling. That being said this is the first thing I’ve edited so I’m not acting maliciously toward the subject, just still working my way through all the welcome videos and and editing tips. Nothing kicked back to me until it was reverted. I cited with peer reviewed academic journal articles using the same citation format as the previous editor, but with counter points. Opossums, unlike previously thought, don’t eat ticks. I don’t know what significant attention is, it’s three sources but yes I can fix them or add more or link to other possums wiki pages that say what I’ve said and use their sources? 2600:1700:4671:B00:20B1:DAE6:545A:223 (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. KUrban asked me to come and help out here. What seems to be the trouble? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like the edits AmandaDI made had problems with formatting.[1] Amanda, now that you know that the reverts were not made because anyone thought you were a bot, do you think you could just fix your access dates? I can show you how if you need it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24 I just fixed it. Do you think the English is simple enough? Kk.urban (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no.

One easy way to make it simpler is to change the passive voice to active whenever reasonably practical. Instead of "It was believed that possums' diets were largely tick-based" should be changed to "Scientists believed possums ate large numbers of ticks."

Converting to active voice can be complicated because we need to know who/what the agent was. (Who believed it? Scientists did. Whose diet was it? Possums' diet.) "The cake was eaten" can only be active if we say who ate the cake. For that reason, it's best if the person who saw the source makes this change. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first two sentences of the paragraph you added. Now you try to turn "It is also likely perpetuated by the hope that opossums would be able to assist in slowing the prevalence of Lyme disease by eating deer ticks. However, it has been pointed out that the study skewed the results by having a methodology primed to create a bias in their conclusion" into active voice. Who perpetuated the rumor? Who was doing the hoping? Who pointed it out? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]