Talk:Richard H. Bube

What's going on?
What's going on? I mean you don't seem to be acting in a friendly, civil way. For example:
 * 1) ? This comment is merely your intrepretation of guidelines.  I strongly disagree with it, especially the fact that you did it without any talk page discussion.
 * 2), ? Not to be disrespectful, but is this action supposed to be some sort of punishment for having made changes to the new layout?

--Firefly322 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Though, I do grant that you do show a lot of talent in copy-editing, I don't think that unsolicited, undiscussed copy-editing really adds all that much to wikipedia. At least nothing to get upset about if another editor has a different view. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:MOSLINKS is very clear: "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article. … However, you should add a descriptive title when an external link is offered in the References, Further reading, or External links section." NO "intrepretation" necessary. You can "disagree" all you like, that does not change it.
 * 2) Removal of non-compliant material is perfectly normal and is not (unlike your frequent and false accusations of anti-Christian bias) incivil.
 * 3) Instead of imputing "punishment", kindly read WP:ELPOINTS: #4 "In the 'External links' section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site."
 * 4) Editing to comply with policy & guidelines does not require 'solicitation' (nor is that required in any case, per WP:OWNER & WP:BOLD).

Actually, WP:MOSLINKS is fairly unclear in this matter. For example, external link sections are almost always separate from reference sections. Nothing in Moslinks supports any sort of removal, simply a change in style. The better guidline is External links and it doesn't support any sort of removal for style violations either. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your response demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the English language. Please stop bothering me with concerns that have no basis whatsoever in the guidelines, particularly when you do so three months after my original post. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "the References, Further reading, or External links section." DOES NOT mean that "external link sections" aren't "separate from reference sections" -- it means 'the References section, Further reading section, or External links section.' It simply omits the unnecessary repetition of the word "section".
 * 2) "Moslinks supports [the] removal" of link titles outside the those sections by stating that they should not be added to the article (body), but rather be restricted to these (appendix) sections.
 * 3) As WP:MOSLINKS explicitly states that link titles are permitted in the EL section of course WP:EL doesn't say anything about them. That means absolutely nothing about whether they are allowed outside the EL section (which is WP:EL's sole concern).

Removal of self-published/first-person reference
I removed the reference because, as indicated in the edit summary, I was going to re-word the sentence to tie in the reference in which Prof. Bube publishes his own "factual case history of what happened". I figured that, although it was his own story of what happened, if properly framed in a sentence like, …until it was cancelled in 1988 by Stanford University; following the cancellation Bube eventually published his "factual case history of what happened" in the Journal of American Scientific Affiliation , given it was published by a third-party it would still be acceptable; but, while reviewing the publication and trying to better identify the site's credibility, I eventually discovered, as a later review of the article revealed in the Professional affiliations section, Bube was formerly an editor, the vice-president, the president, a member of the executive council, a fellow, and now a fellow emeritus of this non-scholarly, religious organization. Given these facts, I can't see any way that this reference could be considered anything other than self-publication and therefore unacceptable in a Wikipedia article under WP:NPOV and given WP:NOTRS (particularly WP:SELFPUB #2 & #5).

Perhaps if this article is referenced elsewhere (approvingly as to its accuracy of facts), in some truly third-party publication, it can be re-added; but other than under such a circumstance, I just can't see it being acceptable. The problem is, and I'm not saying it's the case here, but hypothetically, a course that someone is teaching could be cancelled for any number of valid reasons and the individual could self-publish their own total fabrication of why as a form of retaliation against being effectively fired; and Wikipedia doesn't get in the middle of such situations; it avoids that possibility by requiring that an independent third source publish the info or reference first, after which it's basically acceptable for inclusion in an article. — Who R you? (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"American scientist"
Okay, then what kind of scientist is Bube? This article seems extremely weak without this information in the introduction, let alone the categories. D arth B otto talk•cont 22:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)