For some of the points, like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12551975881 , the library it points to already had a phone number so some of that isn't automatically new. I say these are duplicates because quite a few of these libraries were already mapped and this added a new instance of the library, just without the correct tagging. 
What ever your process was used for checking these, I would reevaluate it, if I were you, because the vast majority of the nodes I checked yesterday between MIA and th3e bottom of Miami dade county were duplicates. There is a good reason we have guidelines for imports and automated edits:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
Before you upload you should always check for duplicates, some of these were really close to the already mapped way.
Just because you were intending to fix the data doesn’t mean that you have free reign to add, or not add, what ever tags you please. Next time you attempt something like this please do not add features that do not have tags like amenity=*, there is a good reason the wiki page for name=* warns against leaving features as just a name; and yes adding a feature without a tag further defining what type of object it is is just as much an issues weather or not you add tags like the phone number. 
If you wanted to add the phone=* and nat_ref=* it would have been better if you’d checked for duplicates and just added the necessary tags to the features instead of adding a new, duplicate, node.
Without the amenity=* tag these amount to nothing because data consumers show you the amenities not random names (even if their attached to an address), to tell you what type of object something is data consumers need the amenity=* (or similar tag) tag to do so.