User talk:Redblueball

RE:Citing references

Hello. You brought up two issues, and I'll address each separately:

You seem to have reverted to a redundant structure of both notes and footnotes, while including a separate references section which include unattributed references to other references and notes

Notes are footnotes are the suggested method accordign to WP:CITE. Annotations should be generally separated from bibliographical references, which is more convenient for the reader. Standard referencing for a book are (Author year page number). The full book referencing should appear in a separate references section. Go to WP:CITE and see Harvard Referencing. The unused sources I did not put there. Feel free to delete them, although we should probably keep them, as some of the information may have come from those sources and placed their by an editor other than ourselves.

...the reference to the article from the Times is again referenced twice.

You're absolutely right. I combined the references.

Later gator.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the "footnotes" section can be placed in either the "notes" or the "references" section; therefore creating one redundant section. It seems overly complex to me to continue with 3 sections for the sake of 2 unattributed annotations.

Thanks for combining the repetition of the Times reference.

Redblueball (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I notice you mentioned Image:95C.jpg but not Image:Breast Image 289.jpg. Though many are against a illustration for some reason i think that anything other then the current lead image on the breast article is better.

Well anyways i just wanted to inform you there is another option Cheers Yami (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I agree with you that either would be better. I'm assuming that the recognition of the consensus in favour of change is not dependent on the numbers of editors in favour of a specific image... just the fact that change has the green light by popularity. If not, then I'll amend my choices in the survey... before it closes on 2008-08-18. Redblueball (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

Good luck trying to change the lead image, you'll need it with Atom.

From my stand point it seems that Atom and Dreadstar are preventing a new consensus from being made, that they want to take their time but the image has been there for years. I mean that image was being used as far back as june 06 which is when i left for college. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=61460821&oldid=61460816

Why is Atom so bent on keep a image that has been there for at least 2 years or more? Well i better what what i say Rlevse or Dreadstar might get a admin to block me again.

like i said good luck. Yami (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The supporting editors probably want to keep the current image because they prefer it over the alternatives. Do I agree with the reasons that support their preference?... no, and I think the reasons are not particularly sophisticated, or thorough enough to warrant maintaining the image in its current status. However, consensus is the way in which things can be changed (regardless of poor choices or injustices that may currently exist in articles) while there is disagreement. This may be difficult to accept while a feature of an article may appear completely crazy, but the onus is on those editors who want a change to provide a more sophisticated alternative - even if this is refuted - the procedure still remains the method in which changes are implemented. If I disagree, then I can always develop my own preferences elsewhere... and in a more specific manner, privately, or with a group more sympathetic to myself as a competent individual. Redblueball (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2008 (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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]