Talk:Paul Păun

Infra-noir

The refs are useful: they give exact bibliographic quotations of items in question and clarify that the two "Infra-Noir" are different items. If you ahve better ones, please replace. If not, I am afraid, I will have to delete the text as unreferenced. -No.Altenmann >t 09:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem? Do you see citations right after the facts? Can you read them? Can you in fact see the words "Crohmălniceanu, p. 198" and "Crohmălniceanu, pp. 162–163, 197–198; Macovei & Popescu, p. 17"? Can you see the full titles of said citations in the references section at the bottom of the text? Do you understand what they mean? If you do but still persist in this "game of chicken" or whatever you imagine this is, then you're wasting my and your time.

These citations confirm the very facts you claim are unsourced, and more. Seriously, this is getting absurd. (And for the third time: amazon links are never to be used as sources, and never used as external links unless it's in the Amazon article itself.) Why was I blessed with your fixation on this article? Dahn (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

And Jesus Christ in heaven, if you see all the references used following a format, and if you know by now (I have informed you myself) that rawlinks are not to be used as references, why do you persist on bringing down the article with inferior edits? Dahn (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. Please explain then what are the proper places to find correct bibliographical information to the items in question. Are library catalogues OK with you? p.s. please tone down from irritated tone. your animosity is unwarranted. imo i was improving the article. bare url are evil are not good, but refs are always better than no refs. and i don't see how refs to booksellers are not reliabli info about rare book bibliogrsphical data. i dont think one may go to your nearest library and fetch the copy of infra-noir. to learn its exact title -No.Altenmann >t 16:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Look over the text. You will notice we already specify what title the works have, when they were published, and by whom (if they have any publisher, that is). It may not cite the title in full, but then again, if the contraction is how they go in secondary sources (as per the current cites), then there is no particular reason to be get specific than that. And doing so is also not "incorrect", since the short version of the titles is not at any point in contradiction with the full version. (In fact, secondary and tertiary sources take primacy over primary ones, in our reporting.)

This information is enough for anyone eager to find the book to then go online to Amazon or whatever and find the books in their original print edition, if this is really what is implied here -- though, I must assert, wikipedia was not conceived to help readers fill their shopping carts. Commercial links are not necessary unreliable -- but they are always promotional.

And, while rawlinks may technically be "better than no references", that slogan certainly doesn't apply to a referenced article. Which brings me back to the question: do you actually see those references for the text you claim is "unreferenced"? And, if not, what will it take for you to see them? Dahn (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. It seems I got somehow confused. -No.Altenmann >t 00:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)