Talk:Anne Stanback

Infobox
An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop view), or at the very top of an article (in mobile view), that summarizes key features of the page's subject. I see no reason not to have one on this article. Toddst1 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question?  Cassianto Talk   19:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a question.   what do you think about having an infobox here?Toddst1 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Toddst1 i thought it was an improvement, but an editor has benn following me. sorry about the drama. apparently there is break of the truce, and an impulse to fight everywhere on this topic. Beatley (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, if you want to be pedantic, then here you go: I'm referring to the part in the MOS (which embarrassingly mislinked to), which describes Infoboxes as being neither "prohibited nor required".   Cassianto Talk   19:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is embarrassed and at least two editors think an infobox would be good. Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you start an RfC then? Two people are not a consensus.  Cassianto Talk   19:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * there was an RfC that you are flouting, why don't you start another? editing warring about infoboxes is childish don't you think? aren't you increasing the likelihood infoboxes will be everywhere with the battleground behavior? Beatley (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Two people are consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking kidding me?  Cassianto Talk   19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When you're the only one objecting, it is. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're clearly trying to bait me and I'm not falling for it.  Cassianto Talk   20:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected
Due to the recent edit war over the inclusion of an infobox I have protected the page to encourage all parties to discuss the issue on the talk page instead of reverting.  Hut 8.5  20:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I was trying to do, but nobody was interested and kept reverting me.  Cassianto Talk   20:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * no one canvased me. i found this article on my own, and added an infobox. in fact another editor, came here and reverted my edit without a discussion. the ORES https://ores.wmflabs.org/ says:
 * with infobox "B": 0.10668716591509796,               "C": 0.3025053411481168,              "FA": 0.003517313007760783,              "GA": 0.034905768243185094,              "Start": 0.5379430536450317,              "Stub": 0.014441358040807555
 * without "B": 0.1811155267687898,              "C": 0.4285454030112168,              "FA": 0.004247927919437366,          "GA": 0.06790550023849315,              "Start": 0.3040846961213861,              "Stub": 0.014100945940676733
 * Beatley (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Marion Parris Smith for why ORES is useless or counterproductive for this task of determining whether an infobox is actually a helpful addition. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * please provide objective evidence why an infobox is not an improvement. Beatley (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to justify why you think one should be added.  Cassianto Talk   21:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * the onus is on you to collaborate. you may imagine that your blocking of progess on 200 biographies is collaboration, but it is a matter of time until a consensus shouts you down. whenever, you have some objective metric to support you essay, then you might have something constructive to say. Beatley (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)