Talk:Sacred Journeys

message: Please do not use such a large blockquote of a review, but instead paraphrase into a small sentence or two.  Thanks.  Smee 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A direct quotation is fine. In case you forgot, just check any of the book related articles that you created for some examples. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In case you forgot, you labeled "quotefarm" on many of other articles I had worked on in the past, and argued that quotes are not that great.  Please paraphrase, or else I can provide a paraphrase/example of the quote if you do not wish to do it.  Thanks.  Smee 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One quote does not make a quote farm. See any of the articles on books that you have created. BTW, I intend to challenge all the citations as per the challenge here in other articles on books you have created. The way you are pursuing the creation of "cited in other books" sections in book articles shows poor scholarship. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jossi, that threat is silly, rude, and harrassment.  Please take it back.  I work very hard on article creation, the page numbers are provided, and the citations are accurate.  I purposely removed myself from the Prem Rawat article in order to avoid conflict with you on that article.  Please do not make threats that you will follow me around on articles that I have worked on.  Smee 03:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you saying, Smee? My interest is to having excellent articles. You are a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, and I respect that. Now please respect my intentions to make articles better, encyclopedic, neutral, and accurate. That was not a threat, that was an effort to pursue that aim. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, please do not say that you will specifically focus on articles I have worked on or created, that is not appropriate.  Thank you for saying that I am a prolific editor.  Smee 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no doubt you are, Smee. You have amassed a very large number of edits in a very short period of time, probably a record. But my concern is about something else: the need to have access to sources and better scholarship when writing articles about subjects you do not have direct access to the sources you use. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is most interesting that you are concerned about that.  But it is inappropriate for you to then say that you will focus solely on my contributions to the project, and go around complaining on articles I have contributed to, when I have done so in good faith with multiple sourced citations.  That is undue harassment and undue effort on your part to research solely my contributions.  Smee 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  You may have misinterpreted what I said. I will not "follow you around", Smee. My concern is that if this is the way you have created "Cited in other works" in other articles, I am challenging you on these as per the discussion here. I am sure that you want good articles as much as I do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I want good articles.  In fact, most recently I have gotten some articles up to good status.  But I have been careful with citations, I think it is just you that are nitpicking them a bit.  Sure, I provide page ranges at times, but I am careful to provide full citations, page numbers, and make sure that the citations are reputable.  I hope you can appreciate that and appreciate the work and new material I have created for this project in a relatively short amount of time, backed up to references.  Smee 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not disputing your prolificness, Smee. But [citing sources is only one aspect of writing good articles. You know that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Niiice, Smee. You cannot address the arguments, so you resort to this? This article is about a book that I have on my bookslhelf and that I have read (great book actually), and I have no problems or COIs in editing it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: An editor deleted the picture of the backcover, with this edit summary:
*per WP:FAIR, only one cover 
I reviewed WP:FAIR, but I didn't see anything there that limits us to the use of only one cover. Is this interpretation based on an extrapolation or did I miss something?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:FAIR allows the use of cover art to depict the subject of an article. In several GA/FAR reviews the subject has come up as it relates to not abusing WP:FAIR unnecessarily. See for example this edit in response to a FARC review request ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia:NFCC#3A which states: 3 a.Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the relvant precedent for FAR review you are referring to is this page: . In that case the reviewer appears to object to the back cover image due to a lack of worthwile content, not due to WP:FAIR restrictions. Regarding Wikipedia:NFCC#3A the need for the back cover image appears to be a judgment call rather than a policy requirement. If you'd like to make a case that it's unnecessary that would be more reasonable than asserting that it's forbidden under fair use.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that it is you who need to make the argument for adding a back cover in contradiction with Wikipedia:NFCC#3A, and not the other way around. Do you think that it is necessary? I don't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back cover 

message: Substituted at 05:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment