Talk:Choiceless awareness

Refs

I did not remove any references. I did not remove any information. Stop your lies. Discuss on the merits not your ownership. You had the same information in two spots. You had info in the notes section that belongs in the reference section, such as accessdate. You did thing that are overly complicated. I cleaned things up to the way it was before you started changing things. Bgwhite (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you did remove pertinent information. Wikipedia:Citing sources Template:Sfn. Your edits remove verifiability. This is a disruptive practice. There was no duplication of info, learn about proper citing of sources (and inline citations) first. If you continue with this, I'll have to ask for intervention so your disruptions can cease. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You have shown no proof. I'm tired of your bulling techniques and your page ownership issues. Show the proof!!!

1. You don't need to add {{sfn}} in the cite template in the reference section. Redundant.
2. Cite templates in the reference section were not in alphabetical order.
3. You used last names or first names in your {{sfn}} templates. Should all be last.
4. Don't need to add "accesslist" into most of the {{sfn}}
5. Don't need to pages value in another template and not use {{sfn}}'s page value.

Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No editor needs to "prove" sourced, verifiable contributions from reliable sources in improving articles when they are within WP policies and follow consistent guidelines on presentation. And your edit summary for this latest unwarranted change includes the order "Don't edit". Nice. I posted a warning at your talk page. If you persist I will have no choice but to ask for some kind of intervention. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again you only do your bully routine and not discuss. We are in a dispute, you don't edit the article, we discuss. Again you have shown no proof. Bgwhite (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to add {{sfn}} in the cite template in the reference section. Redundant.

No, it's not redundant, it may be necessary: {{sfnref}}. There has to be a separate anchor because of the conventions used for authors, or when there is no author/editor Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template. Your edit removes pertinent info and is unconstructive.

Cite templates in the reference section were not in alphabetical order.

Of course they were. As explained in the editor comment (hidden commnent) they are ordered per author, if no author editor, if no author no editor by title, and then by date.

You used last names or first names in your {{sfn}} templates. Should all be last.

No, this not mandatory. As long as they link to the reference with a proper, contextual anchor, any link name will do. Per {{sfnref}}, Template:sfn#Citation template anchor.

Don't need to add "accesslist" into most of the {{sfn}}

Retrieval info may (and should) be added for any sources that are online. What is accessed is a given version at a given date. Nobody can guarantee that the webpage will be there in the future, or the online version will not change. Per WP:CITE#Handling links in citations, Help:Citation Style 1#Access date.

Don't need to pages value in another template and not use {{sfn}}'s page value.

Yes you do, when the page indicated is different from the pages (if any) in the citation template, and/or when you are citing different pages of the same source. Per WP:CITESHORT, Template:Sfn#Recommended style, Help:References and page numbers.

Everything is in general accord with WP:References dos and don'ts. Before you change anything, find out why it might be there, and WP:AGF. You just made wholesale deletions/changes without prior discussion. So naturally you were reverted. The article (which I practically wrote entirely) is being rewritten to add more info and better balance. If you don't have anything constructive to offer and insist on what seem to be frivolous changes, I have no option but to continue per WP:DR. I certainly don't have the time to discuss this forever, this article requires a lot of research. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not make wholesale changes, I made things simpler and more to convention. I did not remove any references as you have accused me of several times. If I did remove one, added one, or moved one, it would be by accident and can be easily redone. You only proved refs can be done many ways, but I did the simpler route. Size decreased by -4,212. Things were redundant. Things were done two ways and streamlined to one way. I moved the url link to the Sources were they belong. I've done everything according to all MOS pages too. You keep saying that you never have time and go away. You bully people into submission. If you don't have time to discuss, you shouldn't be on Wikipedia as that is one of the five pillars. Bgwhite (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing over 5kb of properly sourced and presented material is a wholesale change, especially since your objection seems to be that you don't like certain templates and how they are used. And as this diff shows, you did remove info. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Do not reply within my reply, like you did above. Quote me and then reply. I will refactor the thread so that it makes sense. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[...] You used sfnref on refs with author/editor names. For example, all the refs by Krishnamurti Jiddu did have author names. When it is not needed, why use? Bgwhite (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That is because J. Krishnamurti is better known by his first name, or as J. Krishnamurti, in every source I looked at. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[...] You ordered "Mu Soeng" in the M section. Their last name is Soeng, it should be in the S section. Soeng is another spelling of Cheng, just using a different romanization system. Bgwhite (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The refs are ordered by |author=, first. When no English names are concerned, and per WP guidelines, one can use the entire name in the "author" field and sort accordingly. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

They may not be mandatory, but it is much more simpler if just one pattern is used. There was no need to use both first and last.

Thank you for your input, but this is just an opinion. It certainly makes no difference to readers. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, where they source is linked. You had links in the notes section, where they should be in the sources section. Why have multiple links in Notes and Sources section when they can and should be in the sources section. Bgwhite (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no "shouldn't" here. The template and citation guidelines allow both, as indicated above in my answer. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes, but not all times you used it. You used it when it wasn't needed Bgwhite (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Where? Everywhere it is used it was appropriate to do so. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• 3O Request Greetings, both. I am responding to a third opinion request that was posted about this dispute. This process is completely non-binding, and my opinion carries the same weight as any other user. This is a rather complex dispute, and I will do my best to address every section of it; as far as I can tell, both of you are raising some valid points. So here are some thoughts;

• I do feel that even when non-english names are concerned (ie "Mu Soeng") treating it like an English name, and sorting it under "s" will make life easier for readers, who have not the patience to sort through our citation guidelines.
• The IP address is correct in saying that Jiddu Krishnamurthi is better known as "Krishnamurthi" than "Jiddu." Additionally, "Jiddu" is a patronymic (I believe), not a surname in the English sense, and so the guideline for non-english names applies.
• I cannot see a reason not to use the "page number" parameter of the basic template
• I believe the IP address is justified in adding links to online content; however,
• In general, I think a balance needs to also be struck between precision and accessibility. Introducing large quantities of markup might make a citation more precise, but also makes it a lot harder to figure out, and to edit. For instance, a reference such as {{sfn|J. Krishnamurti|1996|loc="{{nobr|{{interp|Chapter:}}}} What is Meditation?" {{pp.|236|242}}. {{interp|Discussion at [[San Diego]], {{nobr|15 February 1972}}}}}}, I would personally break up into two references; one for the original text, and one for the interpretation (which, I believe, is what is going on here. I've been here 3 years, and I'm confused!). Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy consideration. I am okay with your recommendation for the Mu Soeng entry. As for the markup in citations: {{interp}} is an [Wikipedia editor] interpolation, not an interpretation. It is added to give additional hints and/or info to the reader while making it clear that this is not part of the citation/text. So the example is not really amenable to breaking up in two. I also think it is obvious that precise citations are easier to verify. I think that WP:V comes first; editorial ease-of-use second, especially when the objection is not substantive. I took time to familiarize myself with the markup; so can anybody. I do not force other editors to use markup in articles when it would be inconsistent to do so, per the article's history. The opposite also holds, I believe. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but this is just an opinion. It certainly makes no difference to readers. All this is about the average editor, not reader. Other people will be editing the article. Making it so complex will only discourage people from editing. The average editor needs to be able to edit the article. You may have familiarized yourself with the markup, but the average editor doesn't know or doesn't come across some of this.

Vanamonde93 The only "complaint" I have with your assessment is... I agree there should be links to online content, I just don't agree links to the same document should be in the Notes section several times AND in the Sources section. Bgwhite (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I contribute to articles for the sake of readers, not editors. I am not interested in people who "edit" pages as a hobby, or why fly around doing blind proofing. If you are serious about the project and not a hobbyist, you can easily find out how to properly mark up pages, why other editors are doing what they are doing, and why markup may be important in categorizing pages and in a host of other internal-to-Wikipedia areas. If you want to contribute according to policy and guideline, fine. If you want to proof a page (that is what editing is) respect 1. the contributors (who actually produce this encyclopedia) 2. do not "fix" things that are perfectly fine just because you don't like them or because you don't understand proofing tools and concepts like markup. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

From WP:FIVEPILLARS, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute." Anybody can edit, not those few hundred you deem worthy. For the last time, please stop your bullying tactics and putting people down. Bgwhite (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Great. Contribute all you want. However, I invite you to learn wiki markup and the many different ways it can be used in an article. Before you start making wholesale changes without prior discussion and cosmetic formatting and proofing edits that add no value and may actually reduce clarity and verifiability. 12.196.0.61 (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what "interp" meant. Now that I know what it is, I am even more convinced that it does not belong in the inline citation; inserting it the "References" section is quite sufficient to meet the needs of verifiability. WP:V does not require all the information to be available at the first click; two clicks is quite alright. That's the point of the shortened citations; to reduce the clutter inline (and therefore in the notes section), and to link all inline citations to a comprehensive full citation at the bottom. Bgwhite, you are correct in saying that a link should not be duplicated in the notes and the references. That said, I am not getting sucked into this dispute. The page has been full protected for a week; if you cannot reach consensus here in that time, I suggest you take this to DRN or open an RfC. Oh, and Huxley's first name is spelt "Aldous" not "Aldus." Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well. For someone who does not want to get "sucked into this dispute" you just said a mouthful.

Thanks for explaining what "interp" meant. Now that I know what it is, I am even more convinced that it does not belong in the inline citation; inserting it the "References" section is quite sufficient to meet the needs of verifiability

What convinced you? The interpolations are there to explain items pertinent to the inline citations per se, such as page numbering, passage type, attributions, other info, etc. These are not proper in the overall references, which may have several different short citations. Since this is the case, and for reasons of consistent presentation, even references appearing only once in short citations have similar formatting.

WP:V does not require all the information to be available at the first click; two clicks is quite alright.

Neither is one-click-verifiability forbidden. However, what is more convenient to the reader?

That's the point of the shortened citations; to reduce the clutter inline (and therefore in the notes section),

I dispute that anything in the "Notes" section is "clutter", if it helps the reader to understand and/or verify claims in the article. Which I think is the case here. If the inline citation text becomes untenable, there is the option of switching to WP:LDRHOW, but this does not affect presentation of the "Notes" section.

a link should not be duplicated in the notes and the references

No link is duplicated. There are links to articles, chapters, and books, and also (when feasible) different links to pages or sections of the cited works. As Wikipedia:Citing sources states, and WP:V would require.

I see nothing in WP:V or Wikipedia:Editing policy that disallows the way the article is structured. I see a lot in Wikipedia:Citing sources that allows, even encourages the way I have contributed here. 12.196.0.61 (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Further changes

As more content will be added shortly, necessitating additional sources and notes, the footnotes may be switched to WP:LDR layout, to make contributor/editor navigation easier. Additional changes per WP:BALANCE and WP:INTEGRITY I think are also required, and may be implemented. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WIP part 2

1. Switched footnotes to WP:LDR (Accessibility)
2. Replaced "Further reading" and "External links" sections w. footnote under relevant section (WP:BALANCE)
3. Added further sources and footnotes (WP:INTEGRITY, WP:BALANCE)
4. Restated parts of the text (WP:INTEGRITY)
5. Various fixes, and copy editing

208.87.234.201 (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)