User talk:Astynax/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Astynax. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
Precious again
people of Brazil
Thank you for collaborative contributions to quality articles on noble people of Brazil, such as Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil, in Wikpedia spirit, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
A year ago, you were the 321st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...
Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...
Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...
Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Merge?
Hi Astynax. I've suggested merging Exit counseling into Deprogramming since it seems to be mainly notable as a sub-type of that. You are one of the few people still involved with the article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná
This is a note to let the main editors of Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 11, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 11, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná (1801–56) was a politician of the Empire of Brazil, widely regarded by historians as one of the most influential statesmen of his time. He was elected in 1830 to represent Minas Gerais in the Chamber of Deputies. After Pedro I abdicated in 1831, the regency created to govern Brazil during the minority of the Pedro II soon dissolved into chaos. Paraná formed a political party in 1837, and he and his party's provided a stalwart defence of constitutional order. As president of Rio de Janeiro province, he helped put down a rebellion headed by the opposition Liberal Party. In 1843, he became the de facto first president of the Council of Ministers, but resigned after a quarrel with the Emperor. After years in opposition, in 1849, Paraná was appointed as president of Pernambuco province and then helped to forge an successful alliance in 1851 with Uruguay against the Argentine Confederation. In 1853 Paraná was again appointed president of the Council of Ministers. His electoral reforms caused severe harm to the system of parliamentary government and led to a virtual split in his party. He died unexpectedly while still in office. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!
The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
- Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
- Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
- New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
- Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
- Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
- Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
FAs
I'll be back to Brazil next week. There I'll have access to a few books that we can use to add a little bit more to Pedro Afonso's article. But the first thing I'll do is finish Rosas' article. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is great to see you back despite all the frustration. • Astynax talk 07:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You do need to re-read the original case and apologize
Marshal was never sanctioned for POV - please re-read the case, retract your statements, and I recommend an apology ASAP - your wrong accusations are contrary to WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA). ES&L 19:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- MarshalN20 was indeed sanctioned specifically for tendentious editing (i.e., "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions.") and this exactly reflects the behavior for which the case was brought. • Astynax talk 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Re-read the ArbCom decision, and act like an adult accordingly. They clearly delineate between NPOV and TE intentionally ES&L 00:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I am very familiar with both the case, the decision and the policy reasons behind it. I haven't said anything beyond that. There is absolutely nothing in the decision that "delineates" between NPoV and TE (as quoted above). I'm sorry if you see my comments as somehow wrong, but it is what it is. I won't be apologizing for reiterating what is already on record. Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this subject or with similar baseless charges and/or patronizing insults as to my maturity. • Astynax talk 10:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- No issues - you proved me right, and that's all that needs to be said. Take care ES&L 10:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I am very familiar with both the case, the decision and the policy reasons behind it. I haven't said anything beyond that. There is absolutely nothing in the decision that "delineates" between NPoV and TE (as quoted above). I'm sorry if you see my comments as somehow wrong, but it is what it is. I won't be apologizing for reiterating what is already on record. Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this subject or with similar baseless charges and/or patronizing insults as to my maturity. • Astynax talk 10:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Re-read the ArbCom decision, and act like an adult accordingly. They clearly delineate between NPOV and TE intentionally ES&L 00:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Casting Aspersions, AN/I Case
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
FAC
Please keep an eye on this. I made a few additions to the article today. Could you take a look and fix whatever it's needed? --Lecen (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I also made a few additions to Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil.[1] --Lecen (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for updating the articles. I've added the FAC to my watch list. I'll take a look at Afonso later when I have time. • Astynax talk 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lecen Cambalachero (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Empire
Tell me what you think of this. --Lecen (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable, though it seems like the IP users want to turn the article from a general description to focus on specific points that should instead be in the articles on those subjects. • Astynax talk 09:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Peter I & II of Brazil
Excuse me, sir. Can you explain why you reverted my editions? --EeuHP (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- On stable, reviewed GA and FA articles, it is a good idea to first propose and gain consensus on the article talk page before making significant changes. When someone disputes an edit that you have made, you particularly need to do this. You also need to consider that the existing images have been reviewed during the FA process for copyright and other issues, and substituting an unreviewed image can introduce uncertainty about the image which can impugn the article's established quality. Articles on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but that does not mean that all edits are acceptable, and you should expect that edits to reviewed FA and GA level articles will be subject to particular scrutiny. • Astynax talk 17:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but in the first case I have not replaced anything. Moreover, I will become more visible the painting and I have added better information (I think that the readers would be more interested in who painted the picture and not the age of Pedro when he was painted). In the second case, the image that I propose has been declared an image useful and featured for most wikipedic community. Is it possible that an article 10 does not deserve an image 10?--EeuHP (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- You changed the size and caption on the first image on the first, removing the focus from the subject of the article to the artist and an unverified claim that the picture is a copy. For both changes, you were challenged on the edits and it is up to you to garner consensus before proceeding to make the change. • Astynax talk 18:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is the portrait is a copy of other portrait, the readers have right to know this? Use the phrase for write that Pedro was 35 years old when was painted (when you can calculate this looking the year of his death or by substraction) is not practical.--EeuHP (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- You changed the size and caption on the first image on the first, removing the focus from the subject of the article to the artist and an unverified claim that the picture is a copy. For both changes, you were challenged on the edits and it is up to you to garner consensus before proceeding to make the change. • Astynax talk 18:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but in the first case I have not replaced anything. Moreover, I will become more visible the painting and I have added better information (I think that the readers would be more interested in who painted the picture and not the age of Pedro when he was painted). In the second case, the image that I propose has been declared an image useful and featured for most wikipedic community. Is it possible that an article 10 does not deserve an image 10?--EeuHP (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 4
News for February from your Wikipedia Library.
Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers
Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement
American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia
Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th
Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,323 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 22:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 5
The Wikipedia Library
- New Visiting Scholar positions
- TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
- Australian articles get a link to librarians
- Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Cooney01w.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Juan Manuel de Rosas
Hi, Astynax. How have you been? I decided to finish Juan Manuel de Rosas. Could you take a look at the third paragraph of "Legacy" section? --Lecen (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Lecen. I'm glad that you decided to finish the article. I will take a look now. • Astynax talk 06:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 6
The Wikipedia Library
- New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
- TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
- TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
- New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.
It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz
gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 7
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)
- Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
- TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
- Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
- Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Books
I'm in the US, to be more precise, in Gainesville, FL. You have no idea how amazing is the library of the University of Florida. They have the best Latin American History-related collection in the United States. It is that amazing. Books from Paraguay? There. Argentina? There. Brazil? There. I'll be able to finally make a great article about Juan Manuel de Rosas. I hope you're okay. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fascinating. I look forward to new information you find. I have been busy with visitors this summer, but I'm still around. • Astynax talk 01:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Recognition of your work
|
The Christianity Barnstar | |
| This is probably one of the highest praises any of us can receive here and it was given to an article which is substantially your work. Anything I might add would be more or less redundant. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks. It is good to know that someone finds useful something you've helped make more accessible. • Astynax talk 22:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think a list of groups that do shun names would almost certainly fail individual notability Unfortunately. A category would probably work.John Carter (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hasty?
On what grounds do you justify your characterisation of my removal of the advert tag at Landmark Worldwide as hasty? The tag has been there for four weeks now and there has been no substantial response to my query about it at the time, nor has there been any response to my comments four days ago. Even if the opinions expressed by yourself and Lithistman that the article is excessively favourable towards Landmark were substantiated, the 'Advert' tag would still be uncalled for since the article does not fit the use for which that template is designed: "The Advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers." Please remove the tag now. On the wider issue of whether the article is insufficiently neutral in tone and content, please engage with the discussion I have started on the Talk page, and make concrete specific suggestions for how to improve the article. Thanks DaveApter (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll reply on the article talk. • Astynax talk 07:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
'Ownership' etc
Hi, Thanks for your comments on Talk:Landmark Worldwide, but I really do not think that much of the recent discussion there is helping to clarify steps to improve the article. Please respond to my comments here either in this thread or on my own talk page as you prefer.
Firstly as regards to your assertions that some (unnamed) editors are attempting to exert ownership over the article. Personally I cannot see that this is the case, but even if it were I stand by my suggestion that the issue should be taken up with the editor concerned rather than bandying about accusations on the article talk page. In any event, it is not helpful to make unspecified blanket accusations. If you do think anyone is attempting to own the article, please say who it is and what is your evidence.
As regards the NPOV tag, please say clearly what changes you feel need to be made to the article in order to justify its removal.
I do take exception to the suggestion that I am trying to “stifle debate” - on the contrary it seems to me that I have tried to make a clear statement of the issues and others have obfuscated rather than responding in a constructive manner. DaveApter (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
RfC
I have posted a Request for Comment at Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F DaveApter (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Slightly altered your comment
Hello! I added a bullet to your comment at the Landmark talk page with the intention of improving readability. If you object to the addition, please feel free to change it back or let me know and I will do so immediately. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
As a side note (and given that I've once again been up all night reading these sources), I'll bet that between the two of us we could quote chapter and verse of Chryssides and gang. :) Thanks, and Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Good luck to you on the Landmark article & etc.
You may well need it, and I've had my fill there. On a happier note, you seem to know how to format references much better than I do, so if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Mick Harte Was Here, a little article I just finished, to reformat the 3 or 4 references, I'd appreciate the help. LHMask me a question 03:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you are bowing out, but with the same people coming out of the woodwork each time to resist anything that varies from the viewpoint the corporation seeks to present, I'm afraid I'm not surprised. There is a long list of people who have given up on introducing a more complete picture. My meager contributions to this article, which is in need of a major overhaul–not merely the little adjustments that were attempted over the last couple of weeks–only came about when the Landmark fans removed Landmark Forum from the List of New Religious Movements. That seemed so bizarre to me, simply because it, and its previous iterations, are widely covered in NRM literature. There also, the same people developed a "consensus" that ignored the published scholarship, misrepresented what sources actually say and instituted the Landmark position that it is not related to religion in any way. Same tactics. Articles that do not get much attention from editors are vulnerable to this sort of PoV-pushing behavior, but still it is odd that the viewpoints of editors are allowed to trump what reliable sources clearly state. Unfortunately, frustrating other editors to the point that they leave just perpetuates the slanted reporting and rewards the behavior. It is the rare editor who has the time, interest or energy to resist intransigent PoV-pushers. An Arbcom case may be the only solution in this instance, but those still take a lot of wrangling even over transparently obvious misbehaviors. I will try and take a look at the other article in a few hours. • Astynax talk 04:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I finally had enough once that admin dropped in and reverted out a neutrally-worded sentence or two that detailed the 2006 US DoL investigation and results, claiming that it was some sort of "admin intervention" or whatever. I've got other, far happier things to do on the project. I will peek in some time, and if this ever DOES go to Arbcom, I will be presenting evidence, that's for sure. LHMask me a question 04:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Be very careful there, Astynax. Any admin who will classify a bald revert they make as "admin intervention" might well be willing to block someone who refused to simply cow to their opinion as well. Tread lightly. LHMask me a question 17:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, an admin block would take things straight to Arbcom. I'm not suggesting or contemplating forcing blocks for that reason. Admins seldom have deep knowledge on more than a few specific topics, and do not always have or take time to thoroughly investigate. I had already been working on an outline with sourcing more reflective of how Landmark is treated in other references for a rewrite of the Landmark article, but with the current situation it is futile to develop it further. I have been evaluating whether I have the time to raise an Arbcom case in the near future. Frankly, I have little interest in Landmark corporation and its PR blather. I am concerned, however, that very productive and NPoV editors (including those I have disagreed with) have been driven away from religion, NRM and other topics (as has also been happening in other areas), leaving the persistent fans and PR flacks in control of articles. Popular articles tend not to have this problem, but it festers in less widely watched articles where it is a struggle to get even a couple of uninterested editors involved (the Rfc seeking outside comment, but actually drawing comments from people already involved, is archetypical of that). This problem is bad for Wikipedia, not to mention the reading public. • Astynax talk 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm relatively new to that article, but from the mess I've seen, nothing will solve that except for Arbcom intervention. Thare are too many editors far too invested in making certain that the article reflects Landmark's views. LHMask me a question 19:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, an admin block would take things straight to Arbcom. I'm not suggesting or contemplating forcing blocks for that reason. Admins seldom have deep knowledge on more than a few specific topics, and do not always have or take time to thoroughly investigate. I had already been working on an outline with sourcing more reflective of how Landmark is treated in other references for a rewrite of the Landmark article, but with the current situation it is futile to develop it further. I have been evaluating whether I have the time to raise an Arbcom case in the near future. Frankly, I have little interest in Landmark corporation and its PR blather. I am concerned, however, that very productive and NPoV editors (including those I have disagreed with) have been driven away from religion, NRM and other topics (as has also been happening in other areas), leaving the persistent fans and PR flacks in control of articles. Popular articles tend not to have this problem, but it festers in less widely watched articles where it is a struggle to get even a couple of uninterested editors involved (the Rfc seeking outside comment, but actually drawing comments from people already involved, is archetypical of that). This problem is bad for Wikipedia, not to mention the reading public. • Astynax talk 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks
Please refrain from personal attacks on other editors, and please at least consider that your own viewpoint may not actually be a neutral one. Please focus your discussions on the content, not on individual contributors. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop pasting this same silly nonsense on the talkpages of editors with whom you disagree. It's not a "personal attack" to note that you have a COI regarding Landmark--you've basically admitted as much. LHMask me a question 13:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- As I haven't posted anything in several days, so I'm not sure of your reference. I have no history with Landmark of any kind, pro or con, but I do have a healthy respect for reliable sources and abhor mischaracterization of sources and similar gamesmanship, both of which do need to end. I disagree that I have made any personal attack on you. If something I have said constitutes a personal attack, we do have proper fora (certainly not talk pages) to raise and resolve such charges. • Astynax talk 19:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I posted this message on the Andrew R. Heinze talk page
Hi Astynax. I posted this message on the Andrew R. Heinze talk page (article talkpage), but I don't know if you're following that, so I'm putting it here too. Thanks for whatever help you have the time or inclination to give to me. As you can see (below), I tried to clean up the citations, but I don't know how well I did. I hope this isn't a headache for you.
- I'm not going to do more editing on this article now (and I'll wait for Astynax). Regarding the changes I made last night: I was awake and could see that nobody was working on the citations, so I tried to clean it up for Astynax... I got rid of some dead links, reformatted some sources into a less casual form, and I got rid of some "bad" sources and replaced them with "good" ones (I think). I have a better idea now of what is a good source and what is a bad (or not-so-good) one. I didn't want Astynax to deal with any more of a nightmare than he (or she?) had to. I think it's a little better... I don't really know. Anyway, now I'm done because I don't want to get in Astynax's way. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi EDBF. I noticed that you were working earlier, so I went on to other things. I'll try to give the references a go-over tonight. I plan to use the Sfn short footnote template, as it is easier to maintain than using named ref= notes. It should be easy enough for you to use in the future, as you just put the full citation in a References section and use the short footnotes in the article. It automatically handles citations that appear in more than one spot in the article without repeating. If it seems confusing, you can always revert to the version you are using now, or ask for assistance. • Astynax talk 16:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Astynax, Thanks for your reply. May I suggest that you delay working on it until tomorrow? That way, I'd have time to further improve the existing citations and (most importantly) I could have a go at changing things over to the Sfn short footnote template that you're suggesting. (I especially like it that the Sfn short footnote template automatically handles citations that appear in more than one spot etc.) If you agree to this suggestion, I wonder if you might point me toward some info on using the Sfn short footnote template, if such a thing exists. I could slog through the trenches on my own a little. Slogging is one of the best ways I'm able to learn something new. Then tomorrow (or when you get to it), you could step in (hopefully with less grunt-work to do). DimeBoxFrank (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- But if you think it's better that you start on it tonight, that's fine too. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I can wait. Take as much time as you wish and let me know when you want me to start playing. • Astynax talk 21:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. It will be tomorrow evening, I believe, but I'll let you know... and thanks very much. I wanted to say, Astynax, that I'm very sorry Lithistman has left. I'll miss him, and I can only guess that a whole lot of other people will miss too. He was strict but always fair and willing to talk about things. He was kind too. If you talk to him on an astral plane, tell him I said hello. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Astynax. I won't be ready for your help until tomorrow evening. I was not able to get back to this until an hour ago... and I've spent that time reading about the new template. I'm still trying to understand how to use it. One thing is, I don't see any way to apply it except by manually placing it into the text. Is there any other way to do it? DimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I will switch the citations in the first paragraph of the body so you can see how sfn works. • Astynax talk 22:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you! I was just now going to ask you to do something like that. I feel like I've been taking stupid pills this evening. The more I read about the template (and Wiki templates in general), the more my head spins. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Generally, you just put the full citation down in the References section. You then put the {{sfn|author|date|page}} wherever needed in the text itself. It automatically bunches citations when the same reference is used for multiple statements. It also hotlinks the footnotes so you just have to click on the footnote and it jumps to the corresponding highlighted full citation. The best thing is that when someone moves or deletes text that contains a citation, it doesn't mess up other citations pointing to the same reference. It is easier to use than to explain, though. If you run into trouble, just ask. • Astynax talk 22:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you! I was just now going to ask you to do something like that. I feel like I've been taking stupid pills this evening. The more I read about the template (and Wiki templates in general), the more my head spins. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I just looked at what you did. I understand it better now. So... I can do the "references" the same way I did before - using "cite"? And then I add the sfn into the body of the text after that? DimeBoxFrank (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Confused again... I just gave it a try and messed up. I replaced the info I had with the sfn template, and the footnote appeared in footnotes, but the footnote wasn't tied to any reference. I tried to figure out what I did wrong, but I wasn't able to so far. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Citation barnstar for you!
|
The Citation Barnstar |
| For your work helping EDBF learn the citation ropes--a task for which I was utterly unqualified to help. Keep up the fine work! LHMask me a question 02:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
Citation help for EastDimeBoxFrank
- Okay, I watched what you did. Thanks. So from now on: I enter the regular "cite" info into "References" (at the bottom of the page) with the sfn ref= info at the end of the "cite" stuff. Then I put the regular Sfn template into the body of the work... and it all connects. Correct? DimeBoxFrank (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- You were very close. Because you are heavily using periodicals, you'll need to use the sfnRef= field in the cite template. The sfnRef= needs to match whatever you put in {{sfn|author|date|page}} template. In this case, you had "ref={{sfnRef|Breiger}}" at the end of the cite news template and were using the snf reference "{{sfn|Breiger|5 November 2004}}". The two didn't match, so they weren't linking. • Astynax talk 01:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you so much. This strikes me the way doing math strikes me. Another person can explain a math problem all day long, but it's only when you do the problem yourself (with life-saving advice along the way) that you actually "get it." So now I'm really "getting it." (And thanks the life-saving advice.) I'm also cleaning up my sources as I go... making them consistent, improving a few things and abbreviating months and states (I read that it's a good idea to abbreviate those - to shorten the text. Do you agree with that? If you don't, I'll change them back.) DimeBoxFrank (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- No rules about date format, just so usage in the article ends up being consistent. • Astynax talk 16:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you so much. This strikes me the way doing math strikes me. Another person can explain a math problem all day long, but it's only when you do the problem yourself (with life-saving advice along the way) that you actually "get it." So now I'm really "getting it." (And thanks the life-saving advice.) I'm also cleaning up my sources as I go... making them consistent, improving a few things and abbreviating months and states (I read that it's a good idea to abbreviate those - to shorten the text. Do you agree with that? If you don't, I'll change them back.) DimeBoxFrank (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just checking in. I decided to keep all the dates in the long form. I abbreviated states and that's all. I doubt I'll be done by tonight. I'll let you know when I'm finished (probably tomorrow). I'm taking my time so as not to make mistakes. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Astynax. I'm going to take a few more days with this... probably through the weekend. About half the citations are reformatted at this point. I'm also doing a lot of reading... about citations and about Wiki editing in general. The more I read, the more I see things that need to be improved... and the more time I spend trying to do it correctly. I'n enjoying this process though. I like order and dislike chaos, so this kind of work suits me. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)