Mdd made rearrangements for "clean-up". The main effect was to the least important quotes first. Mdd also changed every "page" to a "p.". The easily understood word "page" was only abbreviated to the ugly "p." to save space on paper. It was a silly thing to do in the first place, since it saved only two characters. And since this document isn't on paper, there's no reason whatsoever to do it. In addition, Mdd's global change broke the link to the Thoreau "Misquotation_Page" (changing it to "Misquotation_P.") I have reverted to the last version by Dexbot. DanStyer (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Dan, Wikiquote biographical articles have a standard lay-out with random quotes first, and then quotes by book under the header of "quotes". The term "Page" is replaced everywhere by "p." This is what clean-up is about. The clean-up is restored and the broken link is fixed. Please keep this in mind with your further edits.
- As to qualifying those random quotes as "the least important quotes," that is not necessary true. The main idea behind this standard layout is, that personal interpretations are being avoided. It is simply the number of quotes from one source, which determines whether or not a (sub)chapter is created. -- Mdd (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Mdd refers to "standard lay-out with random quotes first". But this is not standard according to:
Mdd also claims that "the term "Page" is replaced everywhere by "p."." But this not not standard according to:
- The cleanup tag is added back, and the article is protected. Also I am beginning to understand, that in the 770+ edits you made in the past year, you started to change the normal layout of (some) articles, for example in the Charles Darwin article currently (and before you started editing a year ago, see here). It is clear that you have been altering the normal order, such as the Charles Darwin article before and also in the Richard Feynman, which you have been editing regularly.
- Apparently so far it has been unnoticed, that you created a separate sets, (such as "Letters, Notes, Other Essays, Radio Talks" (here), and "Other Letters, Notebooks, Journal Articles, Recollected Statements" in the Charles Darwin article), where you located the "random" quotes. To my experience (after 10.000+ edits) creating such a set is exceptional, and far from customary. -- Mdd (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Mdd: Will you PLEASE show me wikiquotes policy to support your claim that your layout and abbreviation preferences are "standard" rather than personal preference. Alternatively, will you PLEASE give a rationale that such layout and abbreviation is superior. Lacking such support or rationale, I continue to hold that "page" is easier to understand than "p.". After all, eaUgnmttil to understand most words ("even a UNIX guru needs more than the initial letter"). And I continue to hold that placing miscellaneous quotes first may have the effect of giving the least important quotes the greatest prominence. (I never claimed that this ALWAYS had that effect, but it does in the Leopold and Darwin pages.)
Mdd may, of course, throw his/her weight around and prevent me from improving articles. But if s/he throws weight around without policy support or rationale, s/he is simply bullying. DanStyer (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Several things becomes quite clear, when we look at the article before you started editing this article, for example Revision as of 08:34, 29 September 2012 by Omnipaedista, In the past 1.5 year you have been implementing your (personal) preferences here by:
- Changing the "p." into "page"
- Removing the publication dates from the paragraph titles
- No longer arrange publications in chronological order
- Adding your (personal) most important publication first
- Creating a separate chapter for "miscellaneous quotes", no longer listing at the beginning of the article
- Adding multiple secondary sources as chapters, not integrating these quotes into one chronological structure
- You made similar changes in the Charles Darwin article and in some more, and even pretend this is "wikiquote style" (see this edit summary. These are the things I (tried to) restored, similar to cleanup edits I made in 1000+ other Wikiquote articles in the past 1.5 years. We have a dispute here, whether or not this kind of "manual of style" deviations should be accepted or not.
- Let us be clear, I think you are doing a great job improving the content of the article. It is just lay out, we don't agree on. Now there is policy & practice. The "manual of style" is not so specific, that it approves such changes. I think you have been creating your own layout practice, and I followed the common practice. I ask you one more time to reconsider, and if not we should ask the community for feedback. -- Mdd (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, Mdd, the things that seem clear to you are not clear to me. I asked for either policy support or for rationale, and you supplied neither. Instead, you just said "lots of other pages are doing it my way". Well, I'm not editing "lots of other pages", I'm editing the pages on Leopold and on Darwin. [When my kids tell me they want to go with the majority, I say "The majority of living things are bacteria. Do you want to become a bacterium?] No need to ask the community for feedback ... I have no desire to be bullied, so I'll just stop contributing.
More cleanup needed
- Sorry, it is not the last part, it is the last three chapters. -- Mdd (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- What I mean by "normal/standard lay-out" is the lay-out according to the regular formatting conventions, which have evolved here over the years (as Kalki explained here) but have not been exactly described in the Wikiquote:Manual of style. It is a common practise which most experienced Wikiquote users use, and can be found in most articles. With this edit the last sections are integrated into a more standard/normal chronological structure, and some further rearrangements and improvements have been made. -- Mdd (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)