Talk:Nabeshima ware

ISBNs?
Is there any valid reason, other than WP:OWN, why the ISBNs for the refs have to be repeatedly removed? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, just inattention, and it was just ONE ISBN. Is there any reason at all why the infinitely more useful link to a FULL online version of the MMA book was removed? Or did it just not fit into the ridiculously complicated template? Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No URLs were removed, despite your insistence on a peculiar, non-obvious and non-standard presentation of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. You just suppressed the information that the whole book was available online, leaving just a link that looks like the usual useless link to a google or Amazon page. That's really helping the reader! Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a link to the whole book (and no, we don't link to just "Amazon pages"), presented in the standard format.
 * Why does every encounter with you turn into the same massive WP:OWN problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be a link to the whole book, BUT NOBOBY WILL KNOW THAT. It's very rare that such links are - links to Amazon are far more common in these situations. I don't see an OWN problem (or do you mean Gryffindor? You might have a point there). I see a persistent and shameless cite-bandit who refuses to follow clear policy. I presume that is what you mean - God knows, you're not interested in the content of any articles in areas where I edit. Otherwise I just want to give the reader good information. When certain other editors get involved, this can feel like wading through treacle. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)