Talk:The Jane

Order of Refs
Beyond My Ken: I'm not going to argue this out in a rev war - nor do I care enough about this issue to keep reverting it. You are correct that there is no policy. While ordering references numerically is suggested for reader's sake and because it is commonly required in Harvard style citations - it does not seem to appear in the MoS. I recognize that you are a significant contributor, but that does not give you license to bully or have a poor attitude toward other people on the wiki. You must recognize that your attitude for this situation came off as unnecessarily confrontational. I hope that you take a more civil approach in the future with other editors. Demeaning a person because they have not yet contributed to that article is ridiculous and any experienced editor knows that not all best practices are covered by policy. You do not need to be arrogant about it, or so dismissive of the practice. This is unlikely to encourage others to contribute to articles you care about or lead to compromises. A simple comment here on why you felt ordering them a certain way was best would have been more civil, constructive, and probably less likely for this to repeat itself in the future as many article reviews suggest it and edit tools automate the process for you (in this case AWB). I highly doubt you are unaware of that or that these tools would be doing it if it were not a common practice.

For others: note that Beyond My Ken requests that on this page for citations that user has added, the citations appear in order of their value, according to the contributor, rather than their order of appearance. It plays out in history, but that seems to be the summary to save yourself some time. I obviously invite Beyond My Ken to elaborate if they would like. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 06:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is no requirement that refs be put in some particular order, then please leave it up to the editors who actually contribute content to articles to decide what order the refs should be in. Don't force your own blinkered conceptions down the throat of others, and if your edits are contested by others, per WP:BRD, don't revert the corrections blindly as you just did.  Since I was the editor who reverted your edit, I am not the "confrontational" editor, you are, since you re-reverted without discussion. Given that, I'm not particularly interested in your homilies about "arrogance" and "confrontation". The next time an editor reverts you with a specific reason for doing so, as I gave, don't assume that your personal opinions override their concern and push the "undo" button.  Instead,, follow WP:BRD and open a discussion, if you think the issue is important enough.  If, however, you think the issue is something you don't really care about, as it seems this one is (according to your statement above), then go about your business and edit elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)