User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2019-01

This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list

Talk:Suki Waterhouse

I did an official request for comment for Miss Waterhouse because I have been going back and forth about this for years now. I see you’re in agreement with me that the Doodlebob Wolf guy’s goal post moving is gettting ridiculous as if he owns the page or has a vendetta against her for dating a famous actor. Anyway, I invite you to join so we can all discuss this once and for all. I’m prepared to come with more sources too.Trillfendi (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Dedicated to improving articles about people who are not blokes. Victuallers (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slaight Family Music Lab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birdland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marriott International

1. we did not use 30em any more

2. Either you move all ref to |refs=, or vice versa. You put a single ref to |refs=. Matthew hk (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the real guide: Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts and real policy Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please point out the consensus to use only one ref in |refs=, as well as it can be concise if deleting the line breaker Matthew hk (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

matthew_hk and I both left notes on one another's talk pages at the same time. He subsequently cut and paste the comment I left on his talk page here. My talk page, my rules. I am merely going to link to my comment, and trim their cutting and pasting.t

With regard to "30em"... did I place that? No.

With regard to your link to Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts... You didn't say why you linked to it. The fourth point under the "Do" section reads Use a consistent reference style within each article. So, what does Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style say?

While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook.

As per my comment on your talk page, "A number of citation styles exist..."

I am sorry, but I am concerned you didn't show the basic collegiality of reading my comment.

As I explained in my comment, using {{cite}} templates inline, and placing them in the reference section are merely two different ways of using the {{cite}} template style of referencing.

I suggest you take a closer look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Variation in citation methods. Look particularly at the caution it urges to mess around with stuff that works, for merely esthetic reasons.

With regard to your link to Wikipedia:Citing sources, you didn't specify which passages from that wikidocument you thought were relevant here.

Yes, these documents should be rewritten so they don't confuse people, like you, who don't know that other citation styles beyond the {{cite}} style exist. I continue to think that the advice I left on your talk page was very good advice. I continue to think that you had an honest good faith misunderstanding. I continue to think you honestly thought you should rewrite perfectly adequate references, for esthetic reasons...

...but you shouldn't. So, please stop, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a difference a couple of years make! I checked Matthew's contribution history, and he started contributing in 2006, about two years after I started to contribute here. In 2004 no articles used any kind of citation style. In 2005 early more awkward citation styles took an early lead. But by 2006 the generally superior {{cite}} style had larger supplanted those earlier styles to such an extent that, even though Matthew has made almost as many edits as I have, he seems to have never become aware of those earlier styles. Geo Swan (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the thank button on the revision control page for Marriott International after Matthew made this correction. We are all fallible, and we will all make mistakes. There should be no shaming of others when they make a good faith mistake.
  I am leaving a note about this edit as I see it reinforcing my position. The correction in this edit will be highlighted by the revision control system. However, if Matthew had both moved the location of the reference, and made the correction, at the same time, it would obfuscate the fact that a fix was made to the reference.
  How could this be a problem? Someone -- possibly me -- might decide that the reference and some or all of the new material I added, also belonged in a different article. I might edit the version I left, to cut and paste material into that other article, doing so without realizing the reference contained an errant line feed. The result would be pasting in the version of the reference prior to the correction.
  I think this is an argument for not fixing things that aren't broken, and not unnecessarily moving references that work fine where they are. Geo Swan (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Matthew hk (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew hk claimed he tried to discuss our disagreement, prior to escalating to dispute resolution. What the record shows is that he cut my comment from his talk page one minute after I left it -- not anywhere close to the time it should have taken him to read it. He never actually responded to a single point I made in that comment. So, I am afraid it seems to me that the claim he tried to discuss our disagreement, prior to escalating to dispute resolution, was just not true. Geo Swan (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]