User talk:Jinbobo

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jinbobo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi Jinbobo! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 15:02, Wednesday, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Please, desist![edit]

@Jinbobo: I am in the midst of major editorial work here. Please do not start CHANGING CITATION STYLE until I have finished this work! I will place a "under construction tag", but please allow me the courtesy of finishing the days work before starting to change things! (I am a prof, doing this as public service, while on vacation.) Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. -- Jinbobo (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the consideration. The edit history will keep a record of your proposed changes, and after I have finished, if you want to make them again, they can just be repasted in.

However, please note:

Moving references around without carefully examining the original sources is always inappropriate. The places where the inline citations are placed are chosen because they are appropriate to the information adjacent to which they are placed. Locations of citations should never be moved for convenience of editing, and only if the original source is consulted, and the placement is shown to be inaccurate to the text. You can only move locations of a citation, very carefully, because otherwise it can make information unverifiable (see WP:VERIFY).
Changes of citation format should only take place with discussion. WP policy allows several citation styles, but always insists that one style be in place (i.e., that styles within an article be uniform). Making them so is part of the process of "wikifying" and article, and moving it toward "GA" (Good Article) status. For now, until the bigger issues of the article are dealt with—the wholesale lack of citations in some sections, and the cribbing (plagiarized use of material without attribution) in other sections are addressed—just one, accurate, and traceable style should remain. Because both my style and yours are allowed, because mine was put in place first, and because these bigger issues remain, I would ask no automated template reference change be made immediately. Later, if a change in style improves the article, so be it, raise the discussion in Talk, and I and others will likely agree.

Finally, when more than one editor are working at the same time, usually one waits for the other to finish, and if changing what they just wrote—if it is not vandalism, or wrong—they discuss it first. Please, if changing significant parts of material just written, to show respect and avoid conflict, go to Talk, and discuss the proposed reversions. In short, it is common courtesy not to interrupt another editor while editing, and it is policy not to change locations of citations (unless there is good cause), and it is policy to maintain one citation format until discussing changes to format with other active editors. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll take note of this. Can I get a clarification on the first point, does that include in the source wikitext? -- Jinbobo (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the location of the appearing inline citation number does not change, this issue is moot (but the other issue of discussion before format issue still applies). It is changes of location that one seeks to avoid, without knowledge of both text and source (from this scholar's perspective). Moving a comma changes meaning—see [1]—and moving a superscripted footnote can change attribution, and so verifiability of content. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please[edit]

If, while waiting for me to finish my work, you want to try to complete the last citations (nos. 7-12), that would be a great help! I fixed the first 6, but the rest have many problems. Find each, complete and correct them, and place them in "Further reading", and we can place them in the text after I finish my editing today. Cheers, thanks. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. -- Jinbobo (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my findings on the talk page. Go check it out. Thanks. -- Jinbobo (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are a great collaborator, and I look forward to working with you. Busy now, but back tomorrow or on the weekend. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A first of likely many barnstars for you[edit]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		for your thoughtful and patient response to a curmudgeonly editor. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your[edit]

Constructive sourcing notes at E.S. Turner. You may want to see that the article is all but blanked out, and speak to the Blofeld editor that took his scythe to it. Thanks. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]