Talk:Grace VanderWaal: Difference between revisions

:Looks good. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 

ATS, you accused me in an edit summary just now of failing to assume good faith. I think you *are* editing in good faith, but that you are stubborn and a mediocre editor. You have violated the letter and spirit of [[WP:OWN]]. I have done nearly all the research for this article. Nearly every footnote is to an article that I found and added. You have merely reformatted the article to suit your taste and insisted that the text and ref formatting must be done your way. That is classic [[WP:OWN]]ership. I believe that you apply the rules mechanically, rather than in a way that helps readers and editors. You cherry pick language from rules and then apply it absolutely. For example, [[WP:REPEATLINK]] says that generally it is not helpful to repeat links, but that footnotes are among the things that *may* be linked (in addition to a link in the text) "if helpful for readers". It doesn't say that one *ought to* link them in the footnotes over and over again. In this case, you have linked ''Billboard'' magazine repeatedly in the footnotes, but it is distracting and unhelpful after the first time. Why is that so? WP:OLINK explains that "an excessive number of links" makes it "difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly." That is, if you look at a footnote where you have linked to the magazine, that link is not the important link in the footnote: the important link is to the source itself, so linking to the WP article about the publisher is distracting and not helpful. Similarly, as I noted before, you clutter up the footnotes with redundant dates, justifying this by reference, mechanically, to a template discussion! Obviously, you don't want to learn anything from me, but the best place to learn about balanced and nuanced editing is at FAC, where the best editors work on the highest quality articles. According to your user page, you have never been responsible for improving an article to the [[WP:Featured Article]] level. I strongly suggest that you read some FACs, and see how people deal with the letter *and spirit* of the guidelines there in order to write superior articles. All the best, -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 18:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

:How about we all [[WP:FOC]]?