User talk:Library Guy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome...

Hello, Library Guy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username 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 ask your question there.  Again, welcome! Ramesh Ramaiah talk 17:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moritz von Engelhardt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crimea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gunno Dahlstierna may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | PLACE OF BIRTH = Ör (now part of [[Mellerud Municipality]]) in [[Dalsland]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Attribution header[edit]

In your edit to Gunno Dahlstierna you removed the ;Attribution header. I've been putting that in many EB1911-sourced articles where the WP article is completely (or almost so) a copy of the original, as this is. See the discussion at User_talk:Speednat/Archive/2013/Dec#Attribution_header and the guidance at Wikipedia:PLAGIARISM#Where_to_place_attribution. Do you have a specific objection to the tag? David Brooks (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I object to the tag, because it is useless. Any citation is an attribution to my mind. No need to label it as such, or give it a special header. {{EB1911}} or whatever already displays a suitable message, explaining the material is being copied. Library Guy (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds persuasive to me. I was putting it in out of caution, because I hadn't followed the plagiarism discussion that PBS referred to, so was interpreting the result conservatively. David Brooks (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Unpopulated sister project pages[edit]

Hello. Please see this. Including both populated and unpopulated sister project pages is common Wikipedia practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it just wastes the time of people who click on a link expecting something and not finding anything. It seems reasonable to wait until there is content to post a link to the page. I wouldn't call it common practice, fortunately, to post links to non-content, but I do see it happen, and I think it is a practice to be discouraged. Library Guy (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
One argument for the inclusion is that empty or not those pages exist and we are supposed to link them. A much stronger argument could be that this practice encourages readers/editors to get involved in populating those pages. For example, on January 15 I added a transwiki link to the Wikisource entry "Metaphysics (Ross, 1908)" which at the time was empty. On July 1, another editor populated it. Of course, this could have been done anyway. But I am inclined to believe that those transwiki links do encourage editors to contribute. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
One doesn't have to click on an empty link to see there is no content. No link present cries out that there is no content for the subject of a biographical subject in Wikisource, and I would think this would be enough stimulus for the interested editor. There is just the Britannica article for Stobaeus in Wikisource, and that already has a link. Clicking on the Wikiquote link, there are quotes to be found, not just someone's good idea that someone else should find some quotes. I think a project should be at least started to warrant a link. But really there should be something substantial. A lot of people aren't editors, and even for those that are, at least for this one, the practice of advertising non-content is just annoying. Library Guy (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Herman Armour Webster[edit]

Hello Library Guy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Herman Armour Webster for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. st170e (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)