Eqdoktor
Welcome!
Hello, Eqdoktor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Introduction- 5 The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help
Tips
How to write a great article- File:Crystal Clear app kate.png Manual of Style
Fun stuff...
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
"References" edits
Hi. I've notice that you've changed <references/> to {{Reflist}} on various articles. I'm fairly sure that you oughtn't be doing that. Meddling with such mere matters of preference is generally discouraged, if not outright forbidden. If there is some specific Wikipedia policy behind your edits, please tell me what it is. (I am unaware of any such, plainly.) Otherwise, please stop making changes of that kind. -- Lonewolf BC 04:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Replying on your talk page. --Eqdoktor 06:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- (Moving hither, for sake of continuity -- LW)
I see that you have some misgivings over my replacement of <references> with {{reflist}}, specifically in the Jonestown article. In this case, its really not a matter of personal preference - {{reflist}} uses a smaller font format for the footnotes; in the Jonestown article - I noticed that the footnotes section looked a bit long, so I used reformatted it with a smaller font. Its a marginal issue, and a judgemental call well within the guidelines as laid out in Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Help:Minor edit. As to the uses of of {{reflist}} for footnotes vs other formats - I refer you to Template talk:Reflist.Now as to your concerns:
I'm fairly sure that you oughtn't be doing that. Meddling with such mere matters of preference is generally discouraged, if not outright forbidden. If there is some specific Wikipedia policy behind your edits, please tell me what it is. (I am unaware of any such, plainly.) Otherwise, please stop making changes of that kind.Actually the policy behind ALL my edits and everything I do in Wikipedia is one of the basic parts of the Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Be bold. In fact, Wikipedia positively encourages such edits ("Meddling with such mere matters of preference") as long as they are not disruptive or offensive (vandalism and such). One of the contradictory aspects of Wikipedia oddly enough is: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. There are NO RULES that govern such edits that you speak of. You may have mistaken the caveats in WP:BOLD that calls for caution in updating non-article namespaces that may affect a large number of pages.
- Its a good reminder that Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers - I think I still qualify as one :) --Eqdoktor 09:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. Your response is disappointing, not so much in that you disagree as in the tone and character of that disagreement, which seems intransigent and indignant, rather than reasonable and collegial. Although it is less easy to disagree in the latter manner, I ask you to make greater effort toward that, if disagree we must.
I gather that you feel I've "bitten" you. As much as I regret that you feel so, I must deny that I have. On the contrary, I tried hard to broach the matter diplomatically -- to disagree without being disagreeable. "Don't bite" does not mean "don't criticise or question the actions of, in any way." Further, the flip-side of not putting such criticisms or questionings harshly ("biting") is interpreting them charitably and taking them with good grace when they are gotten-- even if, at the last, disagreeing with them.
I asked you whether any specific policy lay behind your replacements. This was to ask (to more fully explain the question) whether there were some broadly discussed consensus that had become written into a WP policy or guideline (I used "policy" loosely), favouring that replacement, in particular. I gather that there must not be any such, though, whereas instead of giving one you have justified these edits on the grounds of "Be bold", "ignore all rules", and your personal preference for the smaller font generated by "reflist". The last of those at least gives a rationale for the change. Thanks for telling that; I hadn't known or noticed the differing effect. The first two, though, really amount to dodging the issue. Once again: to my knowledge the making of stylistic changes such as this is generally discouraged, and in some specific cases is forbidden. So please don't go about making such edits, in the lack of a consensus in their favour. I'm not telling you that in attempt to boss you around, but only as well-meant advice to a relative newcomer who seemingly was unaware of it. What you do with the information is pretty much up to you, at least for the time being, although I foresee your running into trouble if you carry on making this or other merely stylistic changes to many articles, and taking the attitude you seemingly have adopted with me when you meet objection.
It is quite ironic that on the one hand you would claim neophyte's sanctuary under "don't bite", while on the other hand you marshall sundry other WP pages-about-the-editing-of-WP, in your (rather aggressive) defense of your edits: One who really is so conversant with "the rules" cannot rightly claim the special consideration due a new-comer, and vice-versa. Beyond that, a wiki-lawyerly emphasis on citing rules-pages is generally not the best way to discuss an editorial issue. In particular, bringing up WP:OWN (in your reverting edit-summary on the Jonestown page), was especially unfitting. "Own" deals with an editor, especially one who has written much or all of an article, wanting it left just so, the way that editor put it, and fighting all, or nearly all changes to it (except their own). So unless there is a broad pattern of resisting the work of other editors, "ownership" is not rightly an issue. "Own" does not apply to just any disagreement over a particular edit, and certainly does not blanketly support new edits over what stood before.
Some details, in closing: First, this was not particularly about the Jonestown article. I reverted that article and not the others because it was the one that brought this to my attention and because I could not be bothered to hunt down and assess the others. I just noticed there were more than the one, which is why I decided to warn you against such edits. Second, yes, this is a matter of stylistic preference. You prefer the smaller font, at least where you think the footnotes section is longish. That's a stylistic preference. Third, I looked at "Template talk:Reflist", and saw nought with much bearing on this matter. If there is some particular part of that page that you have in mind, you had better say what it is. It's only a talk-page, anyhow. Fourth and last, contrary to what you suppose, my initial comment to you had nought to do with any "caveats" within "Bold". I don't even know what you are talking about, there, so no, I have not misinterpreted those caveats, whatever they are. (From what you wrote, they sound altogether irrelevant to this matter.)-- Lonewolf BC 23:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)