User talk:Merben11

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. You may have noticed that I have reverted some of your edits; this is in accordance with WP:FURTHER: "publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content". It seems unlikely that the esteemed author Simon Trowbridge will ever get his own article, so having is name as a WP:REDLINK may not be strictly correct. That apart, thanks and all the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks (I think). I won't claim to know the rules, but the text references Stratfordians, which is an earlier ed. of The Company book. Stratfordians is out of print so it seemed helpful to people to reference the current ed. It also seemed helpful, and entirely appropriate, to alert them to the website version of the book. At any rate, I sense you're the type to go around reverting articles because you feel that you own them, so I won't waste my time further. I can predict you following my revisions around and reverting, reverting, reverting.Merben11 (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are both right and wrong: I was trying to be helpful, but I don't own any articles. Owning isn't allowed, regardless of any editor's "type" (as you put it). There is no harm at all in updating the footnotes to the second edition of the book—indeed, as you suggest, it could well be useful—but it's not essential: see ease of access to sources. The "further reading policy" is plain, though: don't have the work in twice. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, if that's the policy (crazy--any scholar will tell you that you don't exclude an item from a bibliography because it's referenced in the notes), but you shouldn't have reverted because that took out all the edits, those ok as well as those that went against policy. You should have pointed out the issue and allowed me to make the change.Merben11 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Checked back, in order to put right any removal of non-duplicated material I may have made, but I couldn't find any. Do you mean ST's enlarged website and the second edition of his print work? He does make the point that one is intended to complement the other.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Afterthought, in the spirit of "pointed out the issue and allowed me to make the change": A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article. If exceptions are to be included, the chapter should be given. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)