Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:39, 6 July 2016

April – December 2011 December 2011 – May 2012 May – August 2012 August – October 2012 October – December 2012 December 2012 – March 2013 March – May 2013 May – August 2013 August – November 2013 November 2013 – January 2014 January – May 2014 May – August 2014 August – November 2014 November – December 2014 January – February 2015 February – March 2015 March – April 2015 April – July 2015 July – September 2015 September – December 2015 December 2015 – April 2016 April 2016 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Misplaced Pages Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Misplaced Pages referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Cn

"Elias, the son of a potter, worked as a tailor's presser at a clothes factory, while Elsie, who was from a family of shipwrights, worked as a seamstress. " this was previously also backed by the Higham book. I don't think this is all verifiable in ELiot which was why I marked it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Doc, I thought it was? Add the ODNB as a ref: they carry the same info (or leave it to me to possibly add in about 30 mins). – SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, ah yes, ODNB, that wasn't a source I consulted, didn't even occur to me to look there when researching this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Valid reversion of Cary Grant

Hi, SchroCat. Shotgun reverting my valid and good faith edits at Cary Grant was uncool. I have rolledback my edits. You may introduce your edits discretely and based on MoS, guidelines, and policy. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Please try and look at the edit honestly: this was no "shotgun" edit, and many of the small changes you made were retained;

2. Just because something is "good faith" does not automatically make them either an improvement, or mean they are untouchable to future alteration;

3. Your knee-jerk reversion was edit warring. please read WP:BRD and use the talk page;

4. Do not tell me how to edit. I edited appropriately, taking into account the changes you made, and the several changes made by others subsequently.

5. I stand by all the changes I made in that edit. Whether you like them or not is not my concern. The Grant talk page is where you should be heading for this, not complaining about what is, from my point of view, a perfectly valid edit I made in good faith to undo some of the changes you made in a large shotgun edit of your own. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SchroCat. I always look at things honestly. I did not knee-jerk revert anything. I reverted my valid edits. You reverted all my edits. I have not edit warred. You have. Please do not be dismissive of my edits. My edits are no bigger or smaller than yours. I put a lot of thought into each one. You reverted all my edits then walked on the page so my only choice was throw your baby out with the bathwater. I am sorry about that. That is the way Misplaced Pages is set up. They do not have a way to check-in, check-out pages to avoid edit conflicts, etc. I did not change any content to speak of in my edit. I am going to put my stuff back and I will respect your stuff if you respect mine. If you shotgun revert mine, and then walk on the page, I will have to throw the baby out with the bathwater again to restore my shotgunned. WP:BRD is an overcited essay, and it is marked as optional. Please do not use it as an excuse to unnecessarily remove my edits scot-free. Do not shotgun revert things. Edit discretely; preserve the good; excise what you think is bad. We are all trying to improve the page. Keep that in mind. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

1. "You reverted all my edits": Nope. Check again, and you'll see why I said you need to look at the edit honestly. (As a rough comparison, your edit added 5,052 character, my partial revert took out 1,235 characters).

2. "I have not edit warred": yes, you did

3. "I did not change any content to speak of in my edit": so why make the pointless changes? We are not bidden to include spaces in title headings, or within the citation template, so if the editors before you have not included them, why do you have to add them? There's no need, so don't do it;

4. "I am going to put my stuff back": (aside from the fact that's more pointless edit warring) what, the pointless spaces that do not need to be there? Are you really that petty that you need to add them just for the sake of it? Ask yourself if it changes the reader's understanding or enjoyment. If not, leave it to the judgement of the people overhauling the article. If you can't help yourself but somehow have to make such a pointless change, don't whine if it gets reverted because you've edit warred without going through the talk page;

5. "restore my shotgunned": as I've pointed out twice, your edit was not "shotgunned". Look at the edit and try and be honest with yourself please;

6. "preserve the good; excise what you think is bad." I did. Perhaps – especially given the number of editors who have questioned what you are doing – you should try and LISTEN to what's being told to you. I'm not sure whether it's a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU or WP:COMPETENCE we're dealing with here, but you are being unnecessarily disruptive in forcing such a minor issue for so little benefit to the article, to your fellow editors and to yourself. It may be best for you to step away from the Grant article and develop something yourself where you can put all the unnecessary spaces in that you want.

I really don't want to continue this, but unless you want to post an acceptance that I have not "shotgunned" your edit, and that the spaces are pointless and need not be edit warred back into the article, then I suggest you don't post here again. – SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Quotes boxes are perfectly acceptable. Ask Loeba and TrueHeartSusie3 who've also contributed featured articles with them. IMO they look a lot more aesthetically pleasing than the horizontal quote boxes. Respect that other article writers have different preferences and move onto your next project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for supporting to keep List of Academy Awards for Walt Disney as a Featured List when it was nominated for removal. Surge_Elec (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

For your work

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Cary Grant (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Misplaced Pages's readers! We hope (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That's very kind of you thank you, but I really did little more than a good copyedit - the extent of a PR, nothing more. Still, it really is most welcome! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You were the voice of reason and action in the face of much soapboxing madness. :-D We hope (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hear hear! Yes it's due a formal PR sometime but not sure I can be bothered right now as I suspect it would turn into an infobox argument! Struggling to feel bothered to continue with Audrey! Annual readership of that is nearer 2 million odd!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography formatting at Walt Disney

They're not required by the MoS but the indents do, in my opinion, improve the legibility of bibliographies and make them look more like ones you find in printed books. I made similar changes to the featured article on Marilyn Monroe and they were welcomed there, but to each their own! It's heartening to see articles as important as Disney's at featured status in 2016, so thanks for your work on it. Ham II (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think this helps the article at all. Cassianto 19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Both styles accomplish exactly what they set out to do, but based purely on aesthetic preference I would opt for the bullet style too. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, WP has no way to automatically create hanging indents, and the artificial line breaks are, indeed horrible. There are times that WP formatting and MOS differs from, say, MLA or Chicago style, and there is no bright line rule that says otherwise. Montanabw 17:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Ham, I guess the three responses (all unprompted by me) have echoed my thoughts on the matter. I think the extant version is more common on Wiki – and that's one of the reasons your changed jarred so,much on viewing. Aesthetically I have to say that I don't like it at all. Thanks for your explanation though: much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Why

Why do you think you get to pick and choose what gets discussion at RfA? Collapsing an entire discussion is on thing, but picking out comments from someone you don't think much of reeks of bias. HighInBC 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The comment was not being 'picked out' because it was yours per se. You tried to re-kindle something a few days after it came to a natural close and after it had been moved onto a different page (to an extent that looks like you're going behind someone's back as well). You know it's baiting, I know it's baiting, and you, as an admin, should learn when not to try and stir up a shit pot for absolutely no reason. The only bias here is that I don't like tendentious editing where the sole purpose is to goad someone into making an inappropriate comment. It's time you backed away from Cassianto as the very clear pattern of your behaviour is worryingly obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

All I know is that a lot of things are being said about people, but when anyone asks for this to be substantiated any tactic is used to avoid answering. It really is transparent.

My most recent interaction with Cassianto was me choosing not to respond to their disruption so your theory that I live to taunt him has a few holes in it. You tend to defend Cassianto regardless of the legitimacy of the situation so perhaps you should consider that you may be too close to the situation. HighInBC 15:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Eliot 2004, p. 24. sfn error: no target: CITEREFEliot2004 (help)