Talk:Raymond Coxon

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Maintenance Tags

14GTR, please state your case on why you think the tags should not be there. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The very short edit notice "Added {{lead too short}} and {{sections}} tags to article (TW))" of Weegeerunner is a violation of WP:CIV and other guideline in the first place, because :"Explain yourself. Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary does not provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed." So Weegeerunner should have placed a more explaining summary or started an entry in the talk page in the first place, not waiting for complaints of the original contributing author of the article. As I read the WP:CIV guideline: It should not be too easy to place some imapropriate templates here and there and some short edit summaries there and have a tail of discussion afterwards - eventually risking the turning away of positively contributing editors like 14GTR! It is uncivil, according to WP:CIV to have a template placed on a users talk page who has contributed many articles to Wikipedia saying :"and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." As one discussant here did. --Miraclexix (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This - this and that may be chronological wise related? --Miraclexix (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is over, Please Wikipedia:Mind your own business and stop antagonizing me. Your continued stalking and harassing of me and trying to paint me as a disruptive editor that drives away people is extemly rude. Please leave me alone. Weegeerunner (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on your talk page, they are completely inappropriate - the lead neatly summarises the arc of his career and the article is too short to be split into further sections. It's unlikely the article would ever be greatly expanded without additional sources and I can't see that happening any time soon.14GTR (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be there because the lead is extremely short and fails to explain who Coxton was. This is a page on Coxton, not his career, and with pages on people, they are usually broken up into sections on early life, beginning of career, future career, etc, And the article isn't "too short" It's not like we are talking about a stub. There is enough content to break it up into parts, and more content can be added anytime. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you are wrong; most of those sections you suggest would be no more than two or three sentances long. Again, where would this extra content you seem to think exists be sourced from ? I haven't found any evidence of it when writing the article.14GTR (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many sections like that on pages are two to three sentences long, so I don't see the problem, and sometimes you have to look for sources. You can't make an article without digging for references, and let's not be saying stuff like "no, you are wrong." Weegeerunner (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, lets not say stuff like "no, you are wrong.", when you can go around spraying tags and templates over the place. No doubt you will be surprised to that I spent a considerable amount of time looking for sources on this subject, so again I ask you where do you think the material to expand the article will come to make it worth splitting into sections ? Of course, if you don't know just say so. 14GTR (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References, they are not nonexistent, if Coxton is notable there should be reliable sources somewhere. You just have to go digging. And I don't like your sarcastic tone. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't know of any material to expand the article with ? Shouldn't you have looked into that before you tagged the article ? 14GTR (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter, I just tagged the article for improvement. Just because I don't know any sources does not mean sources do not exist. It will take some digging, but sources can be found. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]