Talk:Percy Crosby

Scaleback of Nash
While I've retained the date WP:MOS and other stylistic changes of the last editor, I have reverted primarily because of the remarkable way he gave one article, by author Nash, a double mention in the Footnotes/References/External links section, including a special place of honor called "Sources consulted," which is not a WP:CITE heading. He also used it to footnote things that were already properly cited, such as Crosby birth date – which already had an authoritative site, the Social Security Death Index. I must ask, given the overwhelming use of that article and the special treatment given it, whether this is a WP:COI by that article's author.

The previous editor added the specific death date, Dec. 8, under the aegis of the SSN Index footnote, yet that is not so: The Index gives only December 1964. I've added the Robinson cite for that. I've also deleted redundant mentions of birth and death dates &mdash; they're given at top, and there's no need to be repetitious.

I've restored the Footnotes / References / External links section to WP:CITE format. I used the Skippy official site as a direct article reference, so I'm unsure why it was placed under the "for further reading" External links section while giving double listing to the Nash article.

When editors make such radical and questionable changes as did the previous editor, I would ask, with all respect, that they Talk-page rationales for it. I would like very much to discuss the special treatment of the Nash article, and why the previous editor felt it was necessary to use it to double-footnote things already footnoted, list it twice in the References, etc. --Tenebrae 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Having now gone in and made my edits, I've found that virtually all of the previous editor's edits still appear, so my original subhead above was overstatement.


 * The primary edits I made were regarding the special treatment and double-footnotings, etc., of the Nash article. Three Nash footnotes remain. If there is any reason for that article's previous special treatment, let's discuss. --Tenebrae 15:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to pretend after the fact. I have testimonied in your ArbCom trial about your wanton destruction of two hours of incremential sourcing and referencing, restoration of gross libel, and personal attacks. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 17:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Incremential"?
 * If there's any "gross libel and personal attack" in my post above, please point it out. Thanks. --Tenebrae 18:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)