User talk:Cherubinirules

Cherubinirules, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Cherubinirules! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Book of Common Prayer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stevie Wonder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONDING TO Novaseminary: Sorry about that! I had not realized what really was meant by "minor edit". I was assuming that if a change did not affect the body of the article, such as adding a bibliographical citation (something which I do much more than anything else), it would constitute a minor change. I shall not make that assumption and mistake any longer. I have made too many bibliographical citations now to retrace them readily, so I hope that Wiki will not mind if I leave them as they are without further action. Cherubinirules (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2013‎ Cherubinirules (UTC)

When adding "further reading" information...

Hello, Cherubinirules. When adding "further reading" information, as you did with this edit at the Adolescence article, I ask that, per WP:LAYOUT, you create a Further reading section when there is not one; for example, the aforementioned text that you added to the Adolescence article does not belong in the See also section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding my revert of your edit at the Sexual identity article, make sure that the "further reading" text relates, especially directly relates, to the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now have deleted this heading altogether from the Wiki article under which I had listed it variously.

I HAVE BEEN ADDING "Further Reading" headings for the bibliog. citations that I have been adding since the matter was brought to my attention. I have been re-entering the like citations as I have come across or thought of them. I shall go back and re-order, or simiply efface, the adolescence citation which you mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.101.43 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, ALTHOUGH THE BOOK SEEMS RELEVANT TO ME; GO AHEAD AND DELETE THIS IF YOU SEE SO FIT. Cherubinirules (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Cherubinirules, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I tweaked the position of your post and signed it in the section immediately before this one, and I tweaked the position of your post and signed it in this section as well. Your reply should also be after the person's post that you are responding to, not before it. See WP:TALK for more information about formatting talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MY RESPONSE: That sounds like a great idea! To create a "Further Reading" section, how do I go about it? Do I simply type in the heading "Further Reading" on the Wiki article, at the appropriate spot, then proceed after the heading that I add to list the citation(s)? CHERUBINIRULES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.101.43 (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the addition of a new section on Further Reading to the article on History and philosophy of science, containing only one book, E. A. Burtt's Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. I was a bit puzzled why that one book, significant as it was for the development of the field, was singled out for inclusion. Upon looking over your contributions list, I noticed you have been making many similar edits to a wide range of different articles.

I presume you meant no harm but such a pattern of drive-by edits is disturbing. Please take the time to familiarize yourself in some detail with an article and its edit history before changing it. Specifically for the Further Reading edits you have been making, you should be familiar with the subject of both the article and the range of literature on that subject. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

== WP:SPAM ==

You appear to be adding "bibliographic references" pretty indiscrimately to a large number of articles. Please see WP:SPAM. Also, however relevant, books not actually used to create the article should not be added to sections called "References" or "Sources" but to "Further reading", and these should be carefully selected. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Thanks for clearing that up. Where there is such a division of bibliography features, I shall place added citations henceforth in "further reading". As a retired librarian, I feel that I have particular compentence in these bibliographical matters, which is why I do so much addition to the bibliographies. Be assured that I only add citations for items that I can examine physically. The citations have been for books that I own, in my very large collection. I am at present in the process of going through my book collection to weed and to reorder it, which is why I am doing so many additions at the present time, the occasion being so propitious. Cherubinirules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.101.43 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you added junk literature four times to the article on Creation–evolution controversy, probably because you didn't realize that it was junk. Please don't add sources for further reading unless you have actually read the book yourself and the article to which you are adding it. Otherwise, you're just making a mess and other editors have to clean up after you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now a fifth time. Why not suggest your additions on the article talk pages first and let the editors who are familiar with the subject and the article decide whether your sources are worth adding? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: I shall try this approach (i.e. adding the bibliog. citations on the talk pages rather than immediately under "Further Reading"). My perception had been that books of a popular nature would be appropriate if they were comprehensive enough as initial approaches to the subjects. There are numerous such citations that others have made in various articles. However, obviously, one only wants more learned works to be in the lists, from what you write. I certainly, Sir or Madam, can tell the difference! It is a matter of how I had perceived, perhaps wrongly or too broadly, Wiki's intended purpose as a popular encyclopedia. Anyway, it is no problem to be selective as your stated criteria suggest.

As I mentioned earlier, I am adding a lot of bibliog. citations at present because it is timely. I am weeding out my enormous and varied book collection and as I come across books that seem useful for Wiki users to know about, I have set them aside for listing. I do not have time at present to add to articles, because the project is a big one, but the timing is right for noticing books that might be worth listing. I'll limit the choice to do that to works of a more scholarly nature.

A SUBSEQUENT RESPONSE: From examining the "Talk" feature on a number of Wiki articles, it would appear that suggesting a further reading bibliog. citation for consideration is not something that really would work. The bibliographic parts of the articles simply do not appear on most such "Talk" features to access for such end-of-article material. Thus, it seems better simply to continue to add bibliog. citations under "Further Reading" (creating that heading if necessary) and to await intervention, if any, afterwards. At any rate, I certainly appreciate that a Wiki contributor would want to be in approval of citations that do or might appear at the end of his article(s), as well, of course, as within it/them. -- Cherubinirules

A WORD ABOUT STEVE McCLUSKEY's CONCERN. As someone who studied sciences extensively (though not as my "major") in university, and have followed them regularly throughout life, I possess a rather abundant number of books on science in various aspects. I added only one title, for now, under "Further Reading" for S. McCLUSKEY's article, as I have for some others, but I intend often to add more as I go along, so there is no intention to put undue emphasis upon a particular title if I add a single "Further Reading" bibliog. citation; most likely I, indeed, will add a few others as I go along passing through my book collection. This is an incremental matter! -- Cherubinirules

Book spam

I like some of the books you are adding - however make sure they are scholarly and keep in mind others may think its just WP:BOOKSPAM. I have an idea for you that in the long run will make things easier and make the edits more viable. Will list the steps below....

First look on Google books for the title http://books.google.com
If you find the book like "=2333e5dc612f737b&biw=1024&bih=627 this ...click on the book in question (in this case "Great Canadian war stories")
Then copy the huge long url like here
Take that url and past it into the Google book tool that Coverts the bare long url into {{cite book}} format for you with a short stable url and isbn #

So to recap all this ...

look for book like "Great Canadian war stories"
Get url = http://books.google.ca/books?id=dHnwTyl-QxEC&lpg=PP1&dq=Great%20Stories%20of%20Canada&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=Great%20Stories%20of%20Canada&f=false
paste into Google book tool will get you .... Muriel Whitaker (2001). Great Canadian War Stories. University of Alberta. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-88864-383-4. Retrieved 6 June 2013.

you may remove the page number if its just for further reading and not a source. If the book has no preview remove the link in the tool to others wont end up at a page with no readable book..see Book links for more info. If all this is to much just ask me for help at anytime .... as compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia despite what many may think.Moxy (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE. Okay, okay! I desist. My computer competencies and patience make this unfeasible. I am an old man of seventy and all of that is just too much for me to handle. Also, I have better uses for my time than to pursue such complexities for titles which I would like to see on Wiki. -- CHERUBINIRULES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.101.43 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER RESPONSE: I have not minded at all when one has deleted a bibliog. citation that I have added. I do not mind leaving out pagination of volumes, either, or whatever stylistic norm any particular article uses (even rather abnormal ones) that the editors prefer, having conformed the way in which I cite to what already charactierizes the bibliographical part of any article. Those things are for the original article author(s) to determine, not for me to do so. As for the worth of an item, to take the naval book which I cited yesterday as your probably example, I purposely refrained from listing it on the Wiki article with the section on Canadian warships, as an inappropriate item there, but the same book seemed pertinent enough to be on the bibliography that Wiki separately provides on the Royal Canadian Navy. If you feel that it would be inappropriate under either heading, just go and delete it! It does not bother me at all that someone would do so. However, to make me to jump through technological hoops with which I cannot hope, just to discourage me (which seems surely to be the case) is demeaning, and I just do not wish, as an older man of rather limited computer skills, to do that kind of thing, which really should not be necessary, anyway. It adds to the difficulty and to the time to list without sufficient justification, it seems to me. So, dudes and gals, I just prefer to cease participating in the needlessly complex ways that you, for whatever reasons, prefer. -- CHERUBINIRULES

Nazi Germany

REPLY: I feared that I inadvertently had caused the division (making a break within alpha-order under "Bibliography") between "Bibliography" and "Further Reading" when I made the citation for the book by Alfred Price, an important, and from what I have been able to gather, unique book of documentation of its kind on the topic. I thought, after having made the citation, that there had not been "Further Reading" before I added the Price citation and that Price's book would have been the only book under "Further Reading". The extra effort to set aright what I feared that I had done wrong the first time was due to my fear that I had made some error in input. I am very relieved to know that you approve of the sections as they appear. Thanks so much for clarifying that the two sections as they appear really are correct! -- CHERUBINIRULES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.101.43 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cherubinirules. I have once again reversed your edit on Nazi Germany. As explained on the article talk page, none of the books listed in Further Reading were used to develop the article. I know this for certain because I did a total rewrite of the article in April-May this year. Only books that were used to write the article and are sources for its content should be listed in the bibliography. The Further Reading section contains other works of general interest on this topic. This structure is required by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I would appreciate it very much if you did not make any further undiscussed changes to Nazi Germany, as it took a great deal of effort by several people to obtain its present WP:Good article status, and I hope to keep it that way. Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cherubinirules. Diannaa, is correct. Please read, WP:MOS. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Fine! I am glad that the style manual is there to use. It answers some of the questions which I have had. CHERUBINIRULES

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shroud of Turin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

and Colin Murphy. ''The Image on the Shroud''. Transcripts prepared by Multi-Media Transcriptions {of] Toronto. Toronto, Ont.: C.B.C. Transcripts, C.B.C. Enterprises, 1983. ''N.B''.: Transcript of two

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie sent me a message, but I am having trouble finding it. CHERUBINIRULES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.101.43 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cherubinirules. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]