User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2015/April

References do not need to be provided in the lede
The lede is to be a summary of the article. All references should be provided there. There are plenty in the article such as
 * at AllMusic and Billboard, has referenced this album in helping to "establish the band as one of Christian rock's most successful newcomers."
 * peaking at No. 20 on the Billboard 200 and No. 2 on the Hot Christian Albums
 * peaked at No. 4 on the Hot Christian Songs chart (and a non-Christian chart)
 * No. 6 on the Hot Christian Songs chart (and two non-Christian charts)

Full details on their discography article. They have also won Multiple Gospel Music Awards. Again, the lede doesn't need references for every statement, it's to be a summary of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That might make sense in a lede that had no citations, but this one does. The reader is mislead to think the citations in the lede support the statements there, when they fail to do so. The cited source called them alternative. Either change the term or the citation, it's very simple. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking closer at wp:CITELEAD, "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." LeadSongDog come howl!  13:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. If you'd like, I can add references every time, but it seems like you're being retributive rather than bother looking at the article. Let me know what you'd like. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And for the record, you stated that the reference there, to support their location, supported the genre you added and not the one present, not that the existing genre was unsupported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't add a genre, I simply restored it to the one that the existing inline-cited source identified. As I said, I don't care whether you change the statement or just cite a source that supports it properly. Other sources in the article call them by other genres, so there`s an element of OR cherry-picking to be avoided, but if one term seems prevalent go ahead and use it. I have zero interest in the subject, but this is an encyclopedia, and the statements and the citations should agree with each other. You've been around here long enough to know the five pillars, I'm not going to waste your or my time with basics. As far as me "being retributive", that is an unfounded and disappointing slight. All that I've done is discuss it with you. I don't engage in edit wars: it's pointless. I haven`t gone to any of the drama boards. I`m now done with this discussion, do as you please at the article, but I urge you to ask yourself if you are editing in the best way you know how. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you use an electron microscope to split that hair? You removed the band's valid and primary genre and added one that was supported by a reference used to support a different fact. I didn't read the rest of your statement since that first was so biased I couldn't get past it. Cheers.
 * For the record, I moved the reference out of the lede so that editors like you wouldn't stumble over the information being conveyed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I just said, I'm done. Stay off my talkpage.LeadSongDog come howl!  15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy and paste -- copyright
Please see my response to your comment on my user talk page. Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Baumann skin types
If you look at the original AfD Articles for deletion/Baumann skin types, it was deleted as a copyvio of, which it was (and the current version is not). The current version does look like a copy of - which both contains a copyright notice, and a notice that the guy doesn't own the content. So it probably is a copyvio (though of a different source) - though the weirdness might make using Suspected copyright violations worthwhile, I don't know. Wily D 14:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Neurofibromatosis
My philosophy in doing the occasional Wikipedia edit is to not wait until I am able to become an authority in a given subject, but to make what improvements I can when I can. I believe I generally exercise fairly good judgement about when my edits are "safe"; that they are truly improvements. I made a quicky attempt to fill what appeared to me to be a rather large void in this article, in the spirit of the boy with his finger in the dyke, to fill the gap until a subsequent editor could improve it. Instead you took it upon yourself to rub it out, which, unless the copyright lawyers were banging on the door, doesn't seem very helpful. I have now replaced my original edit with a sort of "stub section", somewhat less reader-friendly but at least with enough links to help laypersons who may encounter this illness.

I agree that long quotes are not the best practice, but consider the following; (1) your suggestion that I rewrite the quotes from the NINDS site "in my own words" strikes me as almost ludicrous. I have zero expertise to improve on (or even maintain the sense of) the original author's words. The result of such an attempt on my part would likely come out like thinly-veiled plagiarism. I opted for honest, referenced quotes. (2) Further, if the referenced web page has a copyright notice I couldn't spot it. I believe that federal government publications automatically fall in the public domain, and it seems reasonable to presume that applies to dot-gov web sites as well. If so your suggestion of "probable" copyright violation seems unlikely, although I don't have the background in copyright law to be certain of that either.Mrnatural (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)