Talk:Robert L. Burns

Recent changes

Regarding these changes, there was nothing wrong with the article the way it was before. These particular changes do not serve to improve the encyclopedia; in fact, they simply annoy the original editor and don't help the reader at all. Thanks for paying attention, though. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:, @Magioladitis: @MrBill3: It didn't conform to MOS. Per WP:LEAD No material between the TOC and first section heading. Per WP:LEAD, "Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages." This has been talked about at User talk:GeorgeLouis#Table of contents, User talk:GeorgeLouis#You added material after a TOC again. and ANI. There is no rule that says no infoboxes. The exceptions are for classical music, musicians and composers. You using Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes as a reason to remove an Infobox is not valid. It is an essay which carries no weight at all. You've already been told to stop quoting essays as your justification.

As NE2 said, "Keep in mind that people use wildly different window sizes, and while the software's placement of the TOC may not be perfect, it's better than trying to hardcode for one window size." Around 7-8 people have now told you to stop your TOC and image placements. Stop reverting good edits. Stop with the ownership issues. Bgwhite (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to compliance with MOS. I support accessibility. My only involvement is formatting the references so that I can provide usable links or if unable identify links with via and subscription parameters. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I try not to get too involved in infobox wars but the placement of the TOC was plainly non-standard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the page is long enough, I think an infobox is needed in order to provide quick information about the person. In fact the infobox person should, at some point, be replaced by Infobox officehoder in order to include more information. I think the insertion of the infobox improves the article quality. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate what the above editor believes, but that is not the issue. If the esteemed editor decides to put an infobox on any given article that he or she writes, I would certainly not delete it just 'cause I didn't like it. That would not be cooperative. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

references

The reference section previously contained notes. Notes are not references and belong in a separate section per MOS. (BTW the note is not sourced, in what publication did the Kansas State Library make the 2011 statement?) There were extra brackets in the references. The standard for articles is capitalization of first word. Only the article title itself should be linked. The links for most of the references are based on the user being a logged in library card holder at LAPL or logging in upon clicking the link. The subscription parameter should be added and set to yes and the via parameter should be added and set to "Proquest at the Los Angeles Public Library". Alternately I was going to try to find working direct links. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the above editor, I guess without knowing it, misstated Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Separating_citations_from_explanatory_footnotes, which says, "If an article contains both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists." (Emphasis supplied.) Nevertheless, we should always welcome improvements to an article. The above editor is correct in deleting the note regarding the Kansas State Library because the source was a personal e-mail to the editor: Good catch. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Image facing into the page.

"It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side)." Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Horizontal_placement. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws. "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement." No exception is needed here as image is not a profile. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Neil. No sense in being mean: "You're grasping at straws." That's not nice. Anyway, the placement of images so that they look into an article is a longstanding component of good page layout, whether on Wikipedia or not. You can look it up in most any good book about layout. Anyway, one editor should not revert another editor's work simply because WP:I just don't like it Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not productive to bring up irrelevant guidelines, either. It's not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's a case of you insisting for some reason that this article have an idiosyncratic layout. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have my reasons, but maybe I didn't spell them out correctly. (1) I believe images should look into articles, not away from them. (2) I don't like huge chunks of white space. Maybe for other folks those are not particularly germane. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It was reverted because of WP:LEAD. At the moment, you are the one saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I am satisfied.

I am accepting of the way the page looks now, although it really grates me to see that image floating off to the right, surrounded by a huge white space. Oh, well. No sense in being obstructive. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)