Wikipedia

Talk:Mary Beth Buchanan/Archive 1

< Talk:Mary Beth Buchanan
Latest comment: 15 years ago by John Broughton in topic John Broughton October 30
Archive 1

Date wikification

Here's the policy on dates: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
Generally link full dates so that the editor/reader's preference settings will display their chosen format. Basically, wikify dates of the kind:

  • MONTH DAY, YEAR
  • MONTH DAY

But not:

  • MONTH YEAR

because there is no browser display-preference benefit. LInk on this occasion when there is something that is actually significant about that MONTH YEAR. (Meaning rarely)

Formatting references for easier editing

I went through the text and cleaned out misplaced periods, spaces, quotation marks and the like associated with the text near references. I reformatted how the <ref> and </ref> tags related to the text so that they can be found with greater ease in the editing screen. Here is what I suggest when people add a reference. The good result of this is that you can locate the end of any reference easily, since the closing </ref> is on the first column. This should make it easier to add or edit the text of the article while noticing where the end and start of each reference is. Comments invited.

some text at the end of the sentence.NOSPACE<ref>NEWLINE
body of reference material hereSPACE-NEWLINE
</ref>
Start of next sentence.

The result looks like this while editing:

some text at the end of the sentence.<ref>
body of reference material here
</ref>
Start of next sentence.

Refusal to Step Down

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On Dec 3rd, 2008, Buchanan released a statement to the press that she is refusing to step down or offer her letter of resignation to president elect Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.230 (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please provide your feedback on the page in relation to disputes if you choose to raise them. Simply putting up a NPOV Dispute without detailing what is the issue is not sufficient. All facts on this page are linked to news releases and publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.22 (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This comment is targeted at Prodego who chose to make dispute claims and not provide any support or insights on the discussion page set aside to discuss such debates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.22 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Consolidation of references

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The system of named reference requires full references to be provide just once. In subsequent uses, one just needs to specify its name, e.g. <ref name="Chong Family Values"/>. See Help:Footnotes#Multiple citations of the same reference or footnote for full details.

Apparently someone is indiscriminately reverting this as others try to improve the formatting of this page. -- User:Docu

First, it is not a requirement at all to cut back on the full reference. This page is often vandalized which necessitates the need to maintain the full references throughout. Please stop indiscriminately reverting the page to remove the full references. What you feel is an improvement is not in anyway an improvement at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.232 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Several seem to find that the consolidation is worth to be done, especially as the same article is quoted twice after the same statement.
Besides, I didn't do any indiscrimenate reverts, you must be confusing me with IP 66.238.117.75.
Please fix at least the broken reference markup [1], the duplicate reference and get the external links section in line with Wikipedia:External links#External links section. -- User:Docu

In the future, please take credit for your actions opposed to using "several". Your suggestions are noted and that is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.232 (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss it, please stop reverting others. And no, I'm not 66.238.117.75. -- User:Docu

c I removed all of the following from the "Links" section, which, per WP:GTL, should be called "External links" (I retitled), and which should (per WP:EL) have very few links. In particular, links that are already in footnotes should *NOT* be included again in this section. I didn't check to see which of the following are in fact in the article footnotes (or, to be exact, the only one I did check *was* a duplicate). I strongly suggest that any good sources listed below that are not already used for a footnote be added to the article as a source for existing or added text - that is, as a footnote.

Biographical Information

Publications

Tommy Chong Case

Karen Fletcher Case

Daniel Zehr Case

John Eastman Case and Albert McKelvey Case

Dr. Cyril Wecht Case

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

John Broughton

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

John,

Please stop altering the structure of this page as you have done now twice. Your edits are not helpful and contrary to your opinion, those that have reverted your edits back to the original text are not vandals. First, there is no prohibition against external links also being in the body of the topic. In fact, the well structured references here provide individuals ample sources of material on the topic. Since there is a high level of vandalism to this entry, the links are important to provide readers the unbias information on the topic. Second, please stop removing the first name of the individual of this page. Each section of the page is linked to by numerous other pages in an order to reduce the amount of redundant information in the wiki world. By removing the first name, you could cause people that link to a section not realize that the page is on "Mary Beth Buchanan" and not one of the many man other Buchanans in our history and nation. Simply put, please cease and desist and move on elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.92 (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


In addition to misrepresenting the information you linked to (there is no prohibition stating that references should not also be included as external links), you openly admit that you removed all the links without even reviewing to see if they were in the body as references. Then you state that someone should go out and add them as references per YOUR PREFERENCE. Please refrain from actions such as this in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.92 (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

John Broughton October 30

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

John,

Please stop altering the page causing appropritate reference material to be lost. Also, please stop attempting to say recommendations are mandates or anyone else's edits are vandalism because they don't agree to your very poorly worded misapplied edits. This page is linked to in multiple places. As such, the full name of the individual should be utilized throughout. Especially when the person has a common last name. You have been asked politely numerous times to stop your actions. Please respect the larger community you are a member of and stop your unwarranted non-value added actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.92 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 October 2009

The changes I have made in the past few days have not in any way affected reference material. If in fact I did, by mistake, you are certainly welcome to fix that specific problem, and note that you did so in the edit summary.
Your statement that "the full name of the individual should be utilized throughout" is incorrect. You are simply making up this rule. Here is what the actual rule is: After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms". (That's from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies).)
Also, please note the following: It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics. That is from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). That's why I removed quotation marks.
I think the above two examples clearly indicate that your understanding of Wikipedia rules is limited. But I apologize for calling your edits "vandalism", since you were unaware of those rules. At this point, however, you are fully informed that these interpretations of how Wikipedia biographies should be written are incorrect. If you want to discuss other places where we disagree, I'll be happy to point out the Wikipedia rules for those as well. In any case, it should be absolutely clear that simply changing the article back to a version that you prefer is completely inappropriate.
Finally, please remember to sign your postings to talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the page Mr. Broughton. I am also an individual who follows this page and it is disheartening to see someone such as yourself with no knowledge of the subject matter attempt to alter it as you have. You have put forth a reference to a guideline that does not put any such REQUIREMENT in stone on the individuals names. While you may have a preference as such, it is not warranted, necessary, or even helpful here to the reader. Please stop reverting others corrections of your poorly worded and misguided edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.238.117.75 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem under the impression that guidelines, which I cited, and which apply specifically to the situation at hand, are discretionary - so that if (say) two anonymous editors, neither of whom has done much editing, feels that they can ignore the guidelines, they have the right to do so. And that the community, which created those guidelines, can simply be ignored. Obviously, that's wrong. If you persist in believing that the two of you can ignore the consensus behind those guidelines simply because you want to, you're going to end up blocked. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Third Opinion I came here from WP third opinion, and I have to say, John seems to be in the right here, the manual of style should be followed unless a convincing reason to deviate from it is presented. --UltraMagnusspeak 22:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

John, you know nothing of the subject matter and have simply been a hinderous. Your latest edits removed information that was relevant to the page. Please leave the topic in question and move on somewhere else. Also, please stop threatening people as you have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.92 (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes requested by UltraMagnus. It would serve everyone's benefit if those not familiar with the subject matter simply move along.

First, we're not talking about "subject matter", we're talking about formatting. Experienced editors at Wikipedia should all be familiar with that.
As for removing information that was relevant to the page, the only thing I removed was the stated date in the infobox about Buchanan's position ending; that was based on WP:BALL. And the information was still in the body of the article.
Finally, I point out the following, from Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article. That's policy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

John, on numerous occasions you have altered the structure of the page and removed data. When people have added the data back (for example external links to relevant data sources), you reverted the edits and told the users to do this per YOUR viewpoint. I realize you believe you are some sort of experienced this or that; however you are a poor writer and even poorer editor.

and finally, I point out to you to follow and heed what you reference to from Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article. That's policy.

Please move on.

Disputes

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please utilize the discussion page to note edits prior to making changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.92 (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Beth_Buchanan/Archive_1&oldid=1084074674"