User talk:Cliometrician

Jesse James

While your updates are appreciated, why did you remove citations from content where you only revised some words? You made edit summary stating "Cleaned up messy references", but in fact you are removing references, and changing from one style of referencing to another without gaining consensus from other editors who have worked on this article. People have worked a long time to bring the referencing style into consistency and this is destroying that. Please stop this wholesale changing of references and styles and broach your changes on the talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked nicely to take your concerns to the article talk page. Let me edify you about citation styles on Wikipedia. The policies require a consistent reference style. There is no mandate that one "follow universally recognized citation style" or a "standard citation style". The citation format used in this article, which again, took many hours for more than one editor, is in fact in accordance with one of the suggested styles in Wikipedia. Perhaps you should spend some time learning about how Wikipedia policies read, so familiarize yourself with WP:CITE, WP:REF and WP:CONSENSUS. You do not have the authority to simply come in and undo the work of many others because it isn't how you want it. Your edit summaries are deceptive. You suggested that the article relied heavily on the Settle book, when in fact, prior to your tampering, the Settle book was used a total of 4 times, all secondary to other sources. You are removing other sources for no stated reason, you stated that "many references that have been added on this page are not serious sources, but mere webpages", which is an untruth. The "mere" webpage references were for the last sections covering cultural depictions, except for the Officer Down webpage. Other references with webpages given were for newspaper articles, which are completely accepted valid sources for Wikipedia purposes. Your statements are deceptive and your reasoning is invalid for the changes you are making. If you want to discuss this, then take to a talk page, but do not undo the work of many others because you don't like the policy supported citation style. If you have line by line changes to make, then fine, but again stop undoing the valid work of many others to suit your own viewpoint. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. I am not objecting to content corrections or additional sources. I am objecting, quite strenuously, to you imposing your interpretation of what is a correct citation style. I'd urge you to work your changes in using the established consistency of citation which has been introduced to this page. I'd refer you to the same style of citation formatting that is used on Joel Brand, which has been designated a featured article on Wikipedia. Again, I'm not objecting to content corrections, but the massive changes to format style done outside of consensus. Please don't leave citation errors hanging though. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting the situation in your edit summaries, and because you are not responding to the real issues I have raised regarding what you are doing with this article, I am going to request dispute resolution. I have said quite clearly that there is no issue with correcting content issues, but what you have done on a wholesale basis is completely rework citation formatting throughout the article without gaining editorial consensus to do so. That is unacceptable and contentious and it simply won't fly. Go through and make your corrections if that is what you want to do, but desist in changing the formatting of the citations. Try to understand, you've left citation errors hanging that were previously not. It is absolutely is not a case of whether the existing citations are verifiable, they are verifiable, you simply dispute them. However, you are not addressing that, you are for the most part, only reformatting them. This behavior is unacceptable and against policy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Please be advised I have worked through the article and incorporated the relatively few and minor content corrections you made with the formatting style which has been adapted on the page and using {{cite web}} referencing where it didn't exist. I would reiterate that there was very little content change in your edits, you made no individual book citation page corrections and for the most part, only made changes to the format styling. You removed citations from the Settle book for some content, but not for other. Additionally, Wikipedia absolutely accepts historical society writings and newspaper publications as reliable souces. I find your claims of unverifiability unfounded since you didn't change the actual references or sources, except as I noted. What I find a bit confusing is that you just removed some sources without changing the content. Please do not come in and revert the changes because you don't like the citation style, it is an acceptable style on Wikipedia and would therefore be an arbitrary change subject to dispute. I would, once again, refer you to the James Brand article for a subject with many book sources that is a featured article, meaning it has passed review by a panel of editors for content and citation style and accuracy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]