User talk:WWIReferences

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, WWIReferences! Thank you for your contributions. I am Kleuske and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Kleuske (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Interests
I think you're an asset to Wiki and am curious about your editing interests; care to share? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I intend to try to be an "asset", how much of one remains to be seen! My main "hobby" interest is the 1914-1918 war (especially aviation and other "new technology" aspects) - I don't intend to get into any information science stuff (too much like work). I originally had an idea of concentrating more on improving references than adding "new content" to articles (hence my account name) - but from the little I have done so far this seems to be a lot of effort for little useful return. Some articles (the Fokker Scourge is a case in point) are much better referenced than others - which puzzles me rather, or is there a valid reason why this should be? I have been reading a lot of essays and things and "inspecting" articles within my "sphere of interest", so I have been more "active" than may appear. WWIReferences (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How many citations are enough?
Starting a new topic (hope this is the right way and I haven't mucked up!


 * A rule of thumb is that a paragraph should have at least one ref and where the edit may be contentious, more may be added. In some articles there are passages with sentences and part-sentences cited. Most of what I do is in sfn and since lots of the articles haven't been touched for years, no-one has objected but the original format is usually the guide for later editors; each time I do it it's open to challenge. I hesitated to do this once I realised that soundof and I were minded to question each other's edits on style as much as content. Here's Action of 22 October 1917 an example of sfn citations. I doubt that many citations are scrutinised but when they are we should get them right. Sfns are blue so you an click onto the references long foot note. I made the same mistake as you at first then spent ages putting the orig-year back. There was a discussion about this somewhere but I haven't found it yet. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Found it about half way down there's the same discussion we're having. Keith-264 (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My main interest does look like being mainly citations/references and the format thereof - so we may clash more about things like the citation dates issue we've already got into than either content or style. TALKING OF WHICH!! I hate the very idea of an "edit war" but I DO want a resolution of the date part of a citation footnote that allows us to indicate, for the benefit of the poor old reader, the actual true age of the citation. I have tried very hard to explain this to you already on Talk:Fokker Scourge but I don't think we're on the same wavelength at all. Incidentally I'm NOT talking about the format of the lines of the bibliography, and for what it's worth I rather like the idea of the sfn template - does it have a parameter that allows original publication date (either instead of or as well as the edition date)? If so, problem solved, if not - can we have a general discussion about this - I have been looking at various "WP:" pages and think I have found a way of starting one but I'd rather run this past you one more time first. It will be my very first general discussion, of course! And, I suspect, an overriding one that goes well beyond a single article! Excitement never ceases!WWIReferences (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good morning, I put some more detail on the talk page rather than stray too far into it here, I'd rather you read it first than revert again as that will bring you up against 3RR. See you there. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

reverting doubtful edits
A recent set of edits on the article for Australia were "edit summaried" as "Corrected Grammar", or words to that effect - but this was obviously spurious as there were no apparent discernible changes at all, most certainly not to the grammar. I was "bold" and reloaded the version of the article before that set of changes, but I am just a little confused if I did the right thing? --WWIReferences (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)