 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
I added tax choice to the see also section when I created this entry but it was subsequently removed. The two concepts share the same exact argument: when people make choices for us, the less they know our preferences, the greater the amount of value that will be destroyed. Given that there are only around 500 congresspeople...it stands to reason that they can only know the smallest fraction of 300,000,000+ people's preferences. -- Xerographica ( talk) 15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- If Waldfogel or the reviewers made a connection to this parenting idea with public/tax policy, then that connection should be discussed in the text. In lieu of developing the text, then adding the
WP:SEEALSO would be appropriate if you included a short note to the SA that explained the connection. But including a bare SA, without apparent connection, is poor editing. As you are posting an overall policy argument here, it looks like you want the SA IOT
WP:RGW.--
S. Rich (
talk) 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Without apparent connection? Did you see the connection before I created this section here on the talk page? If not, but you do now, then does this indicate that there is some deficiency in one or both of the entries that my section here on the talk page somehow corrected? As I've indicated before...the "worst editing"...which trumps "poor editing"...is for readers not to understand a concept. That's why I prefer to add as many passages as possible within reason. Given that the passages are added towards the bottom of the entry...it takes absolutely nothing away from editors' prose...nor does it distract from their prose...it simply hedges our bets that readers will understand the concepts. --
Xerographica (
talk) 16:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers. As above, you must show a connection. You can do so by citing what the reviewers or what Waldfogel says. You may prefer to add "as many passages as possible", but you are not being reasonable. One, you don't explain the connection. Two, your passages here (and in other articles) are simply hodgepodges. --
S. Rich (
talk) 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- A "hodgepodge" of what the experts have said on the subject is better than nothing. You seem to think that you're creating value for readers by removing expert and relevant knowledge from their plate and replacing it with a nicely arranged sprig of parsley. You're not creating value...you're destroying value. It wouldn't be that bad but the ultimate irony is that you're destroying value on the entries that cover the concepts related to creating value. If you genuinely feel like you're in the right...then please submit a request for comments on
Actions speak louder than words. --
Xerographica (
talk) 16:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- If the experts have written on this subject -- e.g., the rearing of children -- then include their comments in context. The editing guidance says you must describe the connection(s). I have cited the guidance regarding SAs and the editing rationale for removing them. The next step is for you to
WP:PROVEIT. E.g., you must add a notation or citation that describes the connection. When you say, without support, that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice, etc., you are engaging in
WP:OR.--
S. Rich (
talk) 16:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Where did I say, exactly, that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice? I said that Waldfogel's economic argument is equally applicable to congresspeople making choices for us. Therefore, tax choice is sufficiently relevant to be included in the see also section of this entry. If you don't see the connection between the two concepts, then obviously you fail to understand both concepts. So do you see the connection? If you don't, then what part of these concepts do you not understand? If you do see the connection, then why did you remove tax choice, or allow tax choice to be removed, from the see also section? --
Xerographica (
talk) 17:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly? "The two concepts share the same exact argument". When you imply that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice or that his book is related to the topic, you are engaging in improper WP:SYN. If others make the connection, then cite them.
- This is not a matter of what I understand (or don't understand). It is about the
WP:FIVEPILLARS -- "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here [emphasis added]." Tax choice is not sufficiently related to include here. Nor is cable tv channel availability packages, phone service calling plans, college curriculums, health care options, etc.. E.g., adding any of these ideas, based on the personal preference of you or I would be improper. The editing decision must first be made on good editing principles. Only later in the analysis do we add our personal prejudices.--
S. Rich (
talk) 17:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- If I say that both Waldfogel's concept and tax choice are based on the opportunity cost argument...should somebody assume that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice? Obviously not. Clearly that would be a faulty assumption.
- Where did I say, exactly, that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice? I said that Waldfogel's economic argument is equally applicable to congresspeople making choices for us. Therefore, tax choice is sufficiently relevant to be included in the see also section of this entry. If you don't see the connection between the two concepts, then obviously you fail to understand both concepts. So do you see the connection? If you don't, then what part of these concepts do you not understand? If you do see the connection, then why did you remove tax choice, or allow tax choice to be removed, from the see also section? --
Xerographica (
talk) 17:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- If the experts have written on this subject -- e.g., the rearing of children -- then include their comments in context. The editing guidance says you must describe the connection(s). I have cited the guidance regarding SAs and the editing rationale for removing them. The next step is for you to
WP:PROVEIT. E.g., you must add a notation or citation that describes the connection. When you say, without support, that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice, etc., you are engaging in
WP:OR.--
S. Rich (
talk) 16:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- A "hodgepodge" of what the experts have said on the subject is better than nothing. You seem to think that you're creating value for readers by removing expert and relevant knowledge from their plate and replacing it with a nicely arranged sprig of parsley. You're not creating value...you're destroying value. It wouldn't be that bad but the ultimate irony is that you're destroying value on the entries that cover the concepts related to creating value. If you genuinely feel like you're in the right...then please submit a request for comments on
Actions speak louder than words. --
Xerographica (
talk) 16:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers. As above, you must show a connection. You can do so by citing what the reviewers or what Waldfogel says. You may prefer to add "as many passages as possible", but you are not being reasonable. One, you don't explain the connection. Two, your passages here (and in other articles) are simply hodgepodges. --
S. Rich (
talk) 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Without apparent connection? Did you see the connection before I created this section here on the talk page? If not, but you do now, then does this indicate that there is some deficiency in one or both of the entries that my section here on the talk page somehow corrected? As I've indicated before...the "worst editing"...which trumps "poor editing"...is for readers not to understand a concept. That's why I prefer to add as many passages as possible within reason. Given that the passages are added towards the bottom of the entry...it takes absolutely nothing away from editors' prose...nor does it distract from their prose...it simply hedges our bets that readers will understand the concepts. --
Xerographica (
talk) 16:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Of course it's a matter of what you fail to understand...because both YOU and Rubin are the ones who fail to understand why tax choice is relevant enough to be added to the see also section. You think I need to provide a RS to support its addition to the see also list when the see also policy clearly specifies that RS are not needed for see also items. The only requirement is that the concepts have to be sufficiently relevant. Obviously I believe that they are sufficiently relevant and obviously you do not.
- I've already made a case for their relevance...so now it's your turn to tell me exactly why you believe that the concepts aren't sufficiently relevant to be listed in each other's see also section. In other words...please share with everybody exactly how much...or little...you understand about both of these concepts. I want everybody to fully appreciate the problem with editors editing pages that are way outside their areas of expertise. --
Xerographica (
talk) 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've made a case (not a convincing one, but a case) for
opportunity cost to be linked in both articles, and possibly to both articles, but the connection between
Tax choice and
Scroogenomics is through
opportunity cost. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 19:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Great, let's play this game. What about other people's money? Are both concepts connected to Friedman's concept? -- Xerographica ( talk) 20:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've made a case (not a convincing one, but a case) for
opportunity cost to be linked in both articles, and possibly to both articles, but the connection between
Tax choice and
Scroogenomics is through
opportunity cost. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 19:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've already made a case for their relevance...so now it's your turn to tell me exactly why you believe that the concepts aren't sufficiently relevant to be listed in each other's see also section. In other words...please share with everybody exactly how much...or little...you understand about both of these concepts. I want everybody to fully appreciate the problem with editors editing pages that are way outside their areas of expertise. --
Xerographica (
talk) 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I personally prefer his worldwide estimate...
- You see the same pattern of spending in almost every major western economy, with a big bump in spending in December. You don’t see it in China and you don’t see it in Israel. But you see it in every country that is predominantly Christian, and some that aren’t. Japan also has it in a big way. If you add up that spending in the other major OECD economies you get, instead of $65 billion alone for the U.S., $130 billion (in holiday spending). There’s every reason to believe the dead weight loss is as big elsewhere. That would get you to $25 billion a year around the world in value destroyed through gift giving. - Joel Waldfogel, Q&A: Scroogenomics Author on the Holidays’ ‘Orgy of Wealth Destruction’
-- Xerographica ( talk) 19:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- You know, there is an IP-hopping editor from Michigan, who has been frequently blocked from Wikipedia, primarily for adding quotes without any evidence of relevance. That being said, although the quote is excessive (again), it can probably be used to support some statement, although "orgy of wealth destruction" would have to be explicitly credited. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 19:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) I'll put a range based on the references, but this is why you [Xerographica] need to put
Wikipedia:Inline citations instead of just a bunch of external links. Arthur, the "orgy of wealth destruction" is in the Guardian citation.
72Dino (
talk) 19:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, it needs to be explicitly credited to the Guardian, then. The word "orgy" makes it inherently an opinion. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 19:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure how you think it should be formatted to reflect that. Reference 4 is right after the quotation. Do you recommend the quote in the citation itself, which is easy enough to do? (I just added it to make it clearer that this is a quote from the book's author).
72Dino (
talk) 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Putting the phrase in "scare quotes" (I mean, "reference quotes) seems adequate. Interested readers can check the references to see who said it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure how you think it should be formatted to reflect that. Reference 4 is right after the quotation. Do you recommend the quote in the citation itself, which is easy enough to do? (I just added it to make it clearer that this is a quote from the book's author).
72Dino (
talk) 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, it needs to be explicitly credited to the Guardian, then. The word "orgy" makes it inherently an opinion. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 19:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) I'll put a range based on the references, but this is why you [Xerographica] need to put
Wikipedia:Inline citations instead of just a bunch of external links. Arthur, the "orgy of wealth destruction" is in the Guardian citation.
72Dino (
talk) 19:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rubin, why am I not at all surprised that you had no idea why I shared this passage. 72Dino, writing it as $12-25 makes it seem like his estimate ranges from anywhere from $12 to $25. I'm moderately certain he's saying $12 or so billion for the US and $25 for the world (nevermind...I see you figured it out). Regarding lack of inline citations...it only took me 2.5 seconds to google "scroogenomics $25 billion" and find the relevant article. If it floats your boat to add inline citations...then well...that's what floats your boat. Unfortunately, most of my time is wasted battling VDEs. -- Xerographica ( talk) 20:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
When I created this entry I added numerous relevant topics to the see also section...but they were all removed. It would really help improve this article if any editors could recreate the see also section and add some relevant topics to it Thanks. -- Xerographica ( talk) 12:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- You certainly added numerous topics. Their relevance is disputed. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- So add some topics that YOU believe to be relevant. -- Xerographica ( talk) 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
When I created this article I included a few relevant passages. However, Rubin tagged it with "Quotefarm" and shortly after Rich deleted the section with the following explanation, "Remove "passages" as a mis-titled section, quotes lack proper citation, no connection of the quotes to the book or its topic is provided."
Recently I stumbled upon another book entry on Wikipedia... Looking Backward...with a section that solely consists of "Key excerpts". Rubin, are you going to tag that section with "quotefarm"? Rich, are you going to delete that section? If not, then I'm sure you'll have no objection to me creating a section here in this article for "Key excerpts"...right? -- Xerographica ( talk) 22:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Key excerpts" is not a typical section on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article for appropriate article structure. 72Dino ( talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- So, are you going to delete the "Key excerpts" section from that other article? If not, then why not? -- Xerographica ( talk) 22:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for not deleting sections and thanks for trying to help me understand how Wikipedia works. -- Xerographica ( talk) 22:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
I added tax choice to the see also section when I created this entry but it was subsequently removed. The two concepts share the same exact argument: when people make choices for us, the less they know our preferences, the greater the amount of value that will be destroyed. Given that there are only around 500 congresspeople...it stands to reason that they can only know the smallest fraction of 300,000,000+ people's preferences. -- Xerographica ( talk) 15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- If Waldfogel or the reviewers made a connection to this parenting idea with public/tax policy, then that connection should be discussed in the text. In lieu of developing the text, then adding the
WP:SEEALSO would be appropriate if you included a short note to the SA that explained the connection. But including a bare SA, without apparent connection, is poor editing. As you are posting an overall policy argument here, it looks like you want the SA IOT
WP:RGW.--
S. Rich (
talk) 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Without apparent connection? Did you see the connection before I created this section here on the talk page? If not, but you do now, then does this indicate that there is some deficiency in one or both of the entries that my section here on the talk page somehow corrected? As I've indicated before...the "worst editing"...which trumps "poor editing"...is for readers not to understand a concept. That's why I prefer to add as many passages as possible within reason. Given that the passages are added towards the bottom of the entry...it takes absolutely nothing away from editors' prose...nor does it distract from their prose...it simply hedges our bets that readers will understand the concepts. --
Xerographica (
talk) 16:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers. As above, you must show a connection. You can do so by citing what the reviewers or what Waldfogel says. You may prefer to add "as many passages as possible", but you are not being reasonable. One, you don't explain the connection. Two, your passages here (and in other articles) are simply hodgepodges. --
S. Rich (
talk) 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- A "hodgepodge" of what the experts have said on the subject is better than nothing. You seem to think that you're creating value for readers by removing expert and relevant knowledge from their plate and replacing it with a nicely arranged sprig of parsley. You're not creating value...you're destroying value. It wouldn't be that bad but the ultimate irony is that you're destroying value on the entries that cover the concepts related to creating value. If you genuinely feel like you're in the right...then please submit a request for comments on
Actions speak louder than words. --
Xerographica (
talk) 16:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- If the experts have written on this subject -- e.g., the rearing of children -- then include their comments in context. The editing guidance says you must describe the connection(s). I have cited the guidance regarding SAs and the editing rationale for removing them. The next step is for you to
WP:PROVEIT. E.g., you must add a notation or citation that describes the connection. When you say, without support, that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice, etc., you are engaging in
WP:OR.--
S. Rich (
talk) 16:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Where did I say, exactly, that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice? I said that Waldfogel's economic argument is equally applicable to congresspeople making choices for us. Therefore, tax choice is sufficiently relevant to be included in the see also section of this entry. If you don't see the connection between the two concepts, then obviously you fail to understand both concepts. So do you see the connection? If you don't, then what part of these concepts do you not understand? If you do see the connection, then why did you remove tax choice, or allow tax choice to be removed, from the see also section? --
Xerographica (
talk) 17:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly? "The two concepts share the same exact argument". When you imply that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice or that his book is related to the topic, you are engaging in improper WP:SYN. If others make the connection, then cite them.
- This is not a matter of what I understand (or don't understand). It is about the
WP:FIVEPILLARS -- "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here [emphasis added]." Tax choice is not sufficiently related to include here. Nor is cable tv channel availability packages, phone service calling plans, college curriculums, health care options, etc.. E.g., adding any of these ideas, based on the personal preference of you or I would be improper. The editing decision must first be made on good editing principles. Only later in the analysis do we add our personal prejudices.--
S. Rich (
talk) 17:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- If I say that both Waldfogel's concept and tax choice are based on the opportunity cost argument...should somebody assume that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice? Obviously not. Clearly that would be a faulty assumption.
- Where did I say, exactly, that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice? I said that Waldfogel's economic argument is equally applicable to congresspeople making choices for us. Therefore, tax choice is sufficiently relevant to be included in the see also section of this entry. If you don't see the connection between the two concepts, then obviously you fail to understand both concepts. So do you see the connection? If you don't, then what part of these concepts do you not understand? If you do see the connection, then why did you remove tax choice, or allow tax choice to be removed, from the see also section? --
Xerographica (
talk) 17:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- If the experts have written on this subject -- e.g., the rearing of children -- then include their comments in context. The editing guidance says you must describe the connection(s). I have cited the guidance regarding SAs and the editing rationale for removing them. The next step is for you to
WP:PROVEIT. E.g., you must add a notation or citation that describes the connection. When you say, without support, that Waldfogel is talking about tax choice, etc., you are engaging in
WP:OR.--
S. Rich (
talk) 16:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- A "hodgepodge" of what the experts have said on the subject is better than nothing. You seem to think that you're creating value for readers by removing expert and relevant knowledge from their plate and replacing it with a nicely arranged sprig of parsley. You're not creating value...you're destroying value. It wouldn't be that bad but the ultimate irony is that you're destroying value on the entries that cover the concepts related to creating value. If you genuinely feel like you're in the right...then please submit a request for comments on
Actions speak louder than words. --
Xerographica (
talk) 16:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers. As above, you must show a connection. You can do so by citing what the reviewers or what Waldfogel says. You may prefer to add "as many passages as possible", but you are not being reasonable. One, you don't explain the connection. Two, your passages here (and in other articles) are simply hodgepodges. --
S. Rich (
talk) 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Without apparent connection? Did you see the connection before I created this section here on the talk page? If not, but you do now, then does this indicate that there is some deficiency in one or both of the entries that my section here on the talk page somehow corrected? As I've indicated before...the "worst editing"...which trumps "poor editing"...is for readers not to understand a concept. That's why I prefer to add as many passages as possible within reason. Given that the passages are added towards the bottom of the entry...it takes absolutely nothing away from editors' prose...nor does it distract from their prose...it simply hedges our bets that readers will understand the concepts. --
Xerographica (
talk) 16:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Of course it's a matter of what you fail to understand...because both YOU and Rubin are the ones who fail to understand why tax choice is relevant enough to be added to the see also section. You think I need to provide a RS to support its addition to the see also list when the see also policy clearly specifies that RS are not needed for see also items. The only requirement is that the concepts have to be sufficiently relevant. Obviously I believe that they are sufficiently relevant and obviously you do not.
- I've already made a case for their relevance...so now it's your turn to tell me exactly why you believe that the concepts aren't sufficiently relevant to be listed in each other's see also section. In other words...please share with everybody exactly how much...or little...you understand about both of these concepts. I want everybody to fully appreciate the problem with editors editing pages that are way outside their areas of expertise. --
Xerographica (
talk) 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've made a case (not a convincing one, but a case) for
opportunity cost to be linked in both articles, and possibly to both articles, but the connection between
Tax choice and
Scroogenomics is through
opportunity cost. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 19:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Great, let's play this game. What about other people's money? Are both concepts connected to Friedman's concept? -- Xerographica ( talk) 20:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've made a case (not a convincing one, but a case) for
opportunity cost to be linked in both articles, and possibly to both articles, but the connection between
Tax choice and
Scroogenomics is through
opportunity cost. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 19:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've already made a case for their relevance...so now it's your turn to tell me exactly why you believe that the concepts aren't sufficiently relevant to be listed in each other's see also section. In other words...please share with everybody exactly how much...or little...you understand about both of these concepts. I want everybody to fully appreciate the problem with editors editing pages that are way outside their areas of expertise. --
Xerographica (
talk) 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I personally prefer his worldwide estimate...
- You see the same pattern of spending in almost every major western economy, with a big bump in spending in December. You don’t see it in China and you don’t see it in Israel. But you see it in every country that is predominantly Christian, and some that aren’t. Japan also has it in a big way. If you add up that spending in the other major OECD economies you get, instead of $65 billion alone for the U.S., $130 billion (in holiday spending). There’s every reason to believe the dead weight loss is as big elsewhere. That would get you to $25 billion a year around the world in value destroyed through gift giving. - Joel Waldfogel, Q&A: Scroogenomics Author on the Holidays’ ‘Orgy of Wealth Destruction’
-- Xerographica ( talk) 19:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- You know, there is an IP-hopping editor from Michigan, who has been frequently blocked from Wikipedia, primarily for adding quotes without any evidence of relevance. That being said, although the quote is excessive (again), it can probably be used to support some statement, although "orgy of wealth destruction" would have to be explicitly credited. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 19:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) I'll put a range based on the references, but this is why you [Xerographica] need to put
Wikipedia:Inline citations instead of just a bunch of external links. Arthur, the "orgy of wealth destruction" is in the Guardian citation.
72Dino (
talk) 19:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, it needs to be explicitly credited to the Guardian, then. The word "orgy" makes it inherently an opinion. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 19:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure how you think it should be formatted to reflect that. Reference 4 is right after the quotation. Do you recommend the quote in the citation itself, which is easy enough to do? (I just added it to make it clearer that this is a quote from the book's author).
72Dino (
talk) 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Putting the phrase in "scare quotes" (I mean, "reference quotes) seems adequate. Interested readers can check the references to see who said it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure how you think it should be formatted to reflect that. Reference 4 is right after the quotation. Do you recommend the quote in the citation itself, which is easy enough to do? (I just added it to make it clearer that this is a quote from the book's author).
72Dino (
talk) 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, it needs to be explicitly credited to the Guardian, then. The word "orgy" makes it inherently an opinion. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 19:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) I'll put a range based on the references, but this is why you [Xerographica] need to put
Wikipedia:Inline citations instead of just a bunch of external links. Arthur, the "orgy of wealth destruction" is in the Guardian citation.
72Dino (
talk) 19:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rubin, why am I not at all surprised that you had no idea why I shared this passage. 72Dino, writing it as $12-25 makes it seem like his estimate ranges from anywhere from $12 to $25. I'm moderately certain he's saying $12 or so billion for the US and $25 for the world (nevermind...I see you figured it out). Regarding lack of inline citations...it only took me 2.5 seconds to google "scroogenomics $25 billion" and find the relevant article. If it floats your boat to add inline citations...then well...that's what floats your boat. Unfortunately, most of my time is wasted battling VDEs. -- Xerographica ( talk) 20:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
When I created this entry I added numerous relevant topics to the see also section...but they were all removed. It would really help improve this article if any editors could recreate the see also section and add some relevant topics to it Thanks. -- Xerographica ( talk) 12:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- You certainly added numerous topics. Their relevance is disputed. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- So add some topics that YOU believe to be relevant. -- Xerographica ( talk) 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
When I created this article I included a few relevant passages. However, Rubin tagged it with "Quotefarm" and shortly after Rich deleted the section with the following explanation, "Remove "passages" as a mis-titled section, quotes lack proper citation, no connection of the quotes to the book or its topic is provided."
Recently I stumbled upon another book entry on Wikipedia... Looking Backward...with a section that solely consists of "Key excerpts". Rubin, are you going to tag that section with "quotefarm"? Rich, are you going to delete that section? If not, then I'm sure you'll have no objection to me creating a section here in this article for "Key excerpts"...right? -- Xerographica ( talk) 22:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Key excerpts" is not a typical section on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article for appropriate article structure. 72Dino ( talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- So, are you going to delete the "Key excerpts" section from that other article? If not, then why not? -- Xerographica ( talk) 22:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for not deleting sections and thanks for trying to help me understand how Wikipedia works. -- Xerographica ( talk) 22:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)