| Revision as of 16:26, 11 February 2013 editCapitalismojo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,112 edits ←Created page with 'The reference list is improperly set up. The references should be inline in the article. Reading though each of the papers to find where the first editor might h...' | Revision as of 20:13, 11 February 2013 edit undoXerographica (talk | contribs)2,148 edits Sesame StreetNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Reference list== | |||
| The reference list is improperly set up. The references should be inline in the article. Reading though each of the papers to find where the first editor might have thought they fit is a true pain. ] (]) 16:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | The reference list is improperly set up. The references should be inline in the article. Reading though each of the papers to find where the first editor might have thought they fit is a true pain. ] (]) 16:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :If reading through the papers is painful rather than pleasurable...then well...why bother? Why not improve articles on topics that genuinely interest you? --] (]) 20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sesame Street== | |||
| Capitalismojo just removed this "reliable" source... | |||
| * | |||
| It's funny because here's what I wrote to Stalwart111 nearly a month ago on my talk page... ] | |||
| :Here's another simple exercise. Look over the references that I added to the entry I created for club theory. One reference should quickly grab your attention. You can be certain that Rich and Rubin saw that I created that entry. So how come they didn't notice that "reliable" source? Would it be disruptive if you were to remove it? Perhaps a bit...it's arguably relevant...but it certainly wouldn't be worth being blocked over. | |||
| So Capitalismojo wins the grand prize...he's the first one to actually look through the references. But the prize would be even greater if he could explain the relevance of the Sesame Street song. --] (]) 20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:13, 11 February 2013
Reference list
The reference list is improperly set up. The references should be inline in the article. Reading though each of the papers to find where the first editor might have thought they fit is a true pain. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- If reading through the papers is painful rather than pleasurable...then well...why bother? Why not improve articles on topics that genuinely interest you? --Xerographica (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Sesame Street
Capitalismojo just removed this "reliable" source...
It's funny because here's what I wrote to Stalwart111 nearly a month ago on my talk page... User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Crux_of_the_problem.3F
- Here's another simple exercise. Look over the references that I added to the entry I created for club theory. One reference should quickly grab your attention. You can be certain that Rich and Rubin saw that I created that entry. So how come they didn't notice that "reliable" source? Would it be disruptive if you were to remove it? Perhaps a bit...it's arguably relevant...but it certainly wouldn't be worth being blocked over.
So Capitalismojo wins the grand prize...he's the first one to actually look through the references. But the prize would be even greater if he could explain the relevance of the Sesame Street song. --Xerographica (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)