This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Elizabeth Cosson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily page views
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WikiProject Biography Assessment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Liz Cosson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Elizabeth Cosson. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Elizabeth Cosson. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The use of Australian Defence Force rank, post-retirement or post-separation, is somewhat improper (should only be used by serving uniformed ADF personnel in the permanent forces, or if a member of the Active Reserve - when on duty or when there is a connection between that service).
Retired or post-separation personnel should use (Retd) or (Retired) if rank is used (after the rank, which is to be preferred, or at the end of all post-nominals) to identify they are no longer a serving member - see Northern Territory Strategic Defence Advisory Board [1] for examples. Ideally, rank titles of former serving personnel (outside of former Chiefs of Service or Chiefs of Defence Force, who have their title honorarily retained under Defence Regulations r.33) should not be used in article titles, section or infobox headers, or as the first thing in the lead (preferably to in a 2nd or 3rd paragraph which addresses their military service, or to appear in their military history section) expect in very limited circumstances.
This is especially the case when a former ADF member has gone on to other civilian careers and that is what they are known for now, as is the case for Ms Cosson, who is now a career public servant (having post-separation worked for Veterans’ Affairs, then Health, then Immigration and Border Protection, and then come back to Veterans’ Affairs) Kangaresearch ( talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC) -- Kangaresearch ( talk) 05:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Editors, please abide by WP:RVREASONS. One word or blank edit summary reasons, for anything other than a minor edit, are contrary to WP:RVREASONS. It is good practice, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to discuss significant changes on the Talk page, to recent edits before hitting the publish button.
As this article is undergoing a major re-write, and is still a work in progress, it is preferred contributions by other editors are held off on until 2 June 2020, unless there is an urgent compelling reason to do so (emergency edit). Kangaresearch ( talk) 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Please follow WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. Kangaresearch ( talk) 14:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
For clarity, signature for each paragraph has been included (from that used at the end) so each paragraph doesn’t look unsigned and therefore messy as a result - if using more than one paragraph to discuss seperate things, please - for future - let us sign each respective indent paragraph in a single issue discussion, as it aids comprehension to respond to each seperate item, rather than as a group block (which is much more difficult to follow). Kangaresearch ( talk) 05:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
As it has gotten pretty messy, have broken everything out into logical sub-heading so it is easier to find and track each element. Kangaresearch ( talk) 08:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: edit of 11:27 28 May 2020 (revision 959356737) ...you could suggest something alternative, just so it doesn’t look like that field is unknown (that may cause confusion) Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
|known_for=
without dates. Education but reformatted - typically we present institution first with degree in parentheses. Military service section. Hard to judge the relations at this point as you've said below you'll be expanding on these. With the article as currently written I would consider everything else non-key, but again I don't know what you're intending to do with it.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Education but reformatted - typically we present institution first with degree in parentheses. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither of the info-boxes on those two articles have degrees in their info-boxAs I said, many use institution only, ie. they omit the degrees from the infobox entirely. This presentation is used across a wide swath of Australian biographical articles as well as those from elsewhere around the world, so it would seem to be a fairly stable convention and one comprehensible to a broad readership. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, as mentioned, I saw thatYou were talking about institution then degree in brackets afterward, and I just saw alma mater fields only in your two examples given, which of course only list the university (and it was a change to what is the Education field now). No surprise confusion followed. What you are really wanting is the Education field removed, not changed, and the alma mater field used instead but institution only like the two examples provided. Correct? Kangaresearch ( talk) 20:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
|education=
or |alma_mater=
to present the data - that was never the issue of concern, it's rather how the data is presented within the parameter. In that respect the Keating example seems fine.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 13:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Image would be nice if we could get one (if none are free could claim under fair use). Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
|known_for=
without dates
Nikkimaria (
talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Also when you say military service section can you break this down (we don’t want things cropping up later). Kangaresearch ( talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
|branch=
, |branch_label=
, |serviceyears=
, |rank=
.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 12:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
(entry shifted to rank discussion Kangaresearch ( talk) 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC))
All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
the debridement is on the UK Daily Mail and UK Mail Online - which are both different from the Australian mastheadRSP refers specifically to MailOnline (dailymail.co.uk) - what leads you to believe that does not include Australian content at that site? I am not aware of any such exemption being discussed, and on a quick review of RSN archives have not seen any. WP:BLP directs us to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.", and the current consensus regarding dailymail.co.uk is that it does not meet that bar. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
...perhaps you might like to... join me on this project, to get this article up to scratch - it’d be good to do it in a coordinated way rather than ad-hoc and randomly. Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion of edits or articles should be rational, respectful... and supported by direct citation of any evidence - not vague and unsubstantiated claims. This is excellent advice... Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
SUSPENDED TOPICS Kangaresearch ( talk) 14:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
(Move from Info-box format subsection above Kangaresearch ( talk) 15:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC))
The edit being discussed below relates to usage in article text. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Moved from User talk:Nikkimaria Kangaresearch ( talk) 15:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: edit of 11:33 28 May 2020 (revision 959357485) - was inherited from old infobox, where both appeared, and was not my edit (apart from adding footnotes), but if you want to remove it I don’t have objection (I don’t see a need to constantly draw attention to gongs) Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
|honorific_suffix=
.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: edit of 11:27 28 May 2020 (revision 959356630) was inherited from old infobox and was not my edit (apart from adding footnotes), but if you want to remove it I don’t have objection (thanks for the WP:INFOBOXNTLY reference - this is the benefit of having edit summary fields that are more meaningful that vague and non-descriptive ones like "trim") Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: edit of 11:32 28 May 2020 (revision 959357307) - was inherited from old infobox, and was not my edit, and agree it is common enough, even if LP subject likes to make a thing of it (repeatedly mentioned in bio pieces she participates in, to draw attention to the fact she likes informality) Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Refactoring of off-topic or uncivil comments for an article talk page
|
---|
Kangaresearch (
talk) 03:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Re: edit of 11:27 28 May 2020 (revision 959356737) I note you have a personal hatred of this apparently, but perhaps rather than just repeatedly removing, you could suggest something alternative, just so it doesn’t look like that field is unknown (that may cause confusion). As you have now made over 8 edits with 24 hours, perhaps you might like to consider putting your flurry of focus to good use, and join me on this project, to get this article up to scratch - it’d be good to do it in a coordinated way rather than ad-hoc and randomly. Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Dear Editors, when publishing changes/reversions please take the time to use the edit summary field properly (one should never edit in haste, after all, so if you don’t have the time to enter a clear and plain English edit summary, you don’t really have the time to publish an edit or reversion).
The edit summary field should not use jargon, if plain English is available (unless jargon is universally understood by everyone - example: NATO), abbreviations, unnecessarily obscure or arcane words (when plain English is readily available, show your intelligence in your edits, not in obscure and uncommon words) or be indecipherable or cryptic.
An edit summary field should, without requiring you to look at the edit itself, give you a good idea of the what and the why of the change on its own. It takes only seconds to write a good one. Thanks for your consideration in advance, your fellow Wikipedians will appreciate it (especially on this page). Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Elizabeth Cosson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily page views
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WikiProject Biography Assessment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Liz Cosson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Elizabeth Cosson. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Elizabeth Cosson. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The use of Australian Defence Force rank, post-retirement or post-separation, is somewhat improper (should only be used by serving uniformed ADF personnel in the permanent forces, or if a member of the Active Reserve - when on duty or when there is a connection between that service).
Retired or post-separation personnel should use (Retd) or (Retired) if rank is used (after the rank, which is to be preferred, or at the end of all post-nominals) to identify they are no longer a serving member - see Northern Territory Strategic Defence Advisory Board [1] for examples. Ideally, rank titles of former serving personnel (outside of former Chiefs of Service or Chiefs of Defence Force, who have their title honorarily retained under Defence Regulations r.33) should not be used in article titles, section or infobox headers, or as the first thing in the lead (preferably to in a 2nd or 3rd paragraph which addresses their military service, or to appear in their military history section) expect in very limited circumstances.
This is especially the case when a former ADF member has gone on to other civilian careers and that is what they are known for now, as is the case for Ms Cosson, who is now a career public servant (having post-separation worked for Veterans’ Affairs, then Health, then Immigration and Border Protection, and then come back to Veterans’ Affairs) Kangaresearch ( talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC) -- Kangaresearch ( talk) 05:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Editors, please abide by WP:RVREASONS. One word or blank edit summary reasons, for anything other than a minor edit, are contrary to WP:RVREASONS. It is good practice, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to discuss significant changes on the Talk page, to recent edits before hitting the publish button.
As this article is undergoing a major re-write, and is still a work in progress, it is preferred contributions by other editors are held off on until 2 June 2020, unless there is an urgent compelling reason to do so (emergency edit). Kangaresearch ( talk) 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Please follow WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. Kangaresearch ( talk) 14:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
For clarity, signature for each paragraph has been included (from that used at the end) so each paragraph doesn’t look unsigned and therefore messy as a result - if using more than one paragraph to discuss seperate things, please - for future - let us sign each respective indent paragraph in a single issue discussion, as it aids comprehension to respond to each seperate item, rather than as a group block (which is much more difficult to follow). Kangaresearch ( talk) 05:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
As it has gotten pretty messy, have broken everything out into logical sub-heading so it is easier to find and track each element. Kangaresearch ( talk) 08:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: edit of 11:27 28 May 2020 (revision 959356737) ...you could suggest something alternative, just so it doesn’t look like that field is unknown (that may cause confusion) Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
|known_for=
without dates. Education but reformatted - typically we present institution first with degree in parentheses. Military service section. Hard to judge the relations at this point as you've said below you'll be expanding on these. With the article as currently written I would consider everything else non-key, but again I don't know what you're intending to do with it.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Education but reformatted - typically we present institution first with degree in parentheses. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither of the info-boxes on those two articles have degrees in their info-boxAs I said, many use institution only, ie. they omit the degrees from the infobox entirely. This presentation is used across a wide swath of Australian biographical articles as well as those from elsewhere around the world, so it would seem to be a fairly stable convention and one comprehensible to a broad readership. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, as mentioned, I saw thatYou were talking about institution then degree in brackets afterward, and I just saw alma mater fields only in your two examples given, which of course only list the university (and it was a change to what is the Education field now). No surprise confusion followed. What you are really wanting is the Education field removed, not changed, and the alma mater field used instead but institution only like the two examples provided. Correct? Kangaresearch ( talk) 20:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
|education=
or |alma_mater=
to present the data - that was never the issue of concern, it's rather how the data is presented within the parameter. In that respect the Keating example seems fine.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 13:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Image would be nice if we could get one (if none are free could claim under fair use). Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
|known_for=
without dates
Nikkimaria (
talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Also when you say military service section can you break this down (we don’t want things cropping up later). Kangaresearch ( talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
|branch=
, |branch_label=
, |serviceyears=
, |rank=
.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 12:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
(entry shifted to rank discussion Kangaresearch ( talk) 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC))
All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
the debridement is on the UK Daily Mail and UK Mail Online - which are both different from the Australian mastheadRSP refers specifically to MailOnline (dailymail.co.uk) - what leads you to believe that does not include Australian content at that site? I am not aware of any such exemption being discussed, and on a quick review of RSN archives have not seen any. WP:BLP directs us to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.", and the current consensus regarding dailymail.co.uk is that it does not meet that bar. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
...perhaps you might like to... join me on this project, to get this article up to scratch - it’d be good to do it in a coordinated way rather than ad-hoc and randomly. Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion of edits or articles should be rational, respectful... and supported by direct citation of any evidence - not vague and unsubstantiated claims. This is excellent advice... Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
SUSPENDED TOPICS Kangaresearch ( talk) 14:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
(Move from Info-box format subsection above Kangaresearch ( talk) 15:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC))
The edit being discussed below relates to usage in article text. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Moved from User talk:Nikkimaria Kangaresearch ( talk) 15:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: edit of 11:33 28 May 2020 (revision 959357485) - was inherited from old infobox, where both appeared, and was not my edit (apart from adding footnotes), but if you want to remove it I don’t have objection (I don’t see a need to constantly draw attention to gongs) Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
|honorific_suffix=
.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: edit of 11:27 28 May 2020 (revision 959356630) was inherited from old infobox and was not my edit (apart from adding footnotes), but if you want to remove it I don’t have objection (thanks for the WP:INFOBOXNTLY reference - this is the benefit of having edit summary fields that are more meaningful that vague and non-descriptive ones like "trim") Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: edit of 11:32 28 May 2020 (revision 959357307) - was inherited from old infobox, and was not my edit, and agree it is common enough, even if LP subject likes to make a thing of it (repeatedly mentioned in bio pieces she participates in, to draw attention to the fact she likes informality) Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Refactoring of off-topic or uncivil comments for an article talk page
|
---|
Kangaresearch (
talk) 03:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Re: edit of 11:27 28 May 2020 (revision 959356737) I note you have a personal hatred of this apparently, but perhaps rather than just repeatedly removing, you could suggest something alternative, just so it doesn’t look like that field is unknown (that may cause confusion). As you have now made over 8 edits with 24 hours, perhaps you might like to consider putting your flurry of focus to good use, and join me on this project, to get this article up to scratch - it’d be good to do it in a coordinated way rather than ad-hoc and randomly. Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Dear Editors, when publishing changes/reversions please take the time to use the edit summary field properly (one should never edit in haste, after all, so if you don’t have the time to enter a clear and plain English edit summary, you don’t really have the time to publish an edit or reversion).
The edit summary field should not use jargon, if plain English is available (unless jargon is universally understood by everyone - example: NATO), abbreviations, unnecessarily obscure or arcane words (when plain English is readily available, show your intelligence in your edits, not in obscure and uncommon words) or be indecipherable or cryptic.
An edit summary field should, without requiring you to look at the edit itself, give you a good idea of the what and the why of the change on its own. It takes only seconds to write a good one. Thanks for your consideration in advance, your fellow Wikipedians will appreciate it (especially on this page). Kangaresearch ( talk) 16:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)