Misplaced Pages

User talk:Astynax: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:44, 25 September 2014 editAstynax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,921 editsm →Citation help for EastDimeBoxFrank: obviously I can't type← Previous edit Revision as of 02:18, 25 September 2014 edit undoLithistman (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,072 edits →A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove messageTag: WikiLoveNext edit →
Line 63: Line 63:
* 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? ] (]) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC) * 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? ] (]) 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 <nowiki>{{sfn|author|date|page}}</nowiki> template. In this case, you had "<nowiki>ref={{sfnRef|Breiger}}"</nowiki> at the end of the ''cite news'' template and were using the snf reference "<nowiki>{{sfn|Breiger|5 November 2004}}</nowiki>". The two didn't match, so they weren't linking. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:43, 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 <nowiki>{{sfn|author|date|page}}</nowiki> template. In this case, you had "<nowiki>ref={{sfnRef|Breiger}}"</nowiki> at the end of the ''cite news'' template and were using the snf reference "<nowiki>{{sfn|Breiger|5 November 2004}}</nowiki>". The two didn't match, so they weren't linking. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Citation Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your work helping EDBF learn the citation ropes--a task for which I was utterly unqualified to help. Keep up the fine work! ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 02:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 02:18, 25 September 2014

This is Astynax's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
Note: contents of this page are periodically archived by a bot. If there have been no recent posts here, that can result in no messages being displayed below. Older messages are still readable in the archives (above). New messages may be added here. If you post a message here, I will usually reply on this page, unless the conversation started on your talk page or elsewhere.

Thanks very much for your note about the photo of the prayer platform at Robinson's Arch! It's great to get a note of thanks once in awhile, and not a note of criticism! :) NearTheZoo (talk) 19:57, 16 June 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. LHM 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 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. LHM 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. LHM 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 Misplaced Pages, not to mention the reading public. • Astynax 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. LHM 19:44, 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. LHM 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 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 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)
I can wait. Take as much time as you wish and let me know when you want me to start playing. • Astynax 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 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 22:54, 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 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 01:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A 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! LHM 02:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)