User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

We don't take excerpts:
Okay, I have had enough of tidying up your edits that do not comply to the Style guide and its associated pages, and your continued approach to blithely continue outside of the guidance for additions. You are blocked and we will continue the conversation on this page until I hear that you understand that this site is about generating a quality product, not some slipshod convenience to you, that it is has guidelines and they will be followed unless there is an exceptional reason to step outside the guidance.

I know that you don't like that I am removing components from your edits, however, this site has a strong culture of patrolling and it is an expectation that we get the style right, and you seem point blank not wishing to apply our standard. Patrolling is part of that and it is about getting pages to our style. You have addressed your questions to the most experienced users at this site and they have all supported the continuance of the guidance.

Detail
 * No excerpts. This is clearly stated in WS:WWI. You have been instructed, you have pages moved back to your subpages for completion and our standard will be maintained. If you do not wish to complete the typing on an article, then that is fine, don't add it until is is complete. No more ... in the middle of an article, and such pages will be deleted as they are out of scope.
 * No more place name linking. We do not do it by general practice and it would take a strong exception to do it. We do not take our user for fools, and we believe that they can read and comprehend placenames or look them up. A link from an old work to a modern encyclopaedia is generally not pertinent to our works. We don't not interpret works and links that we add have to add value to specifically comprehend the work. If we did what you are doing in these pieces with our biographical works, eg. DNB, EB1911, they would be butt ugly. So we maintain minimal linking. If you had cared to read the previous discussions you would comprehend this, instead you just persist with an argument that the guidance doesn't address removal. Okay, don't add them and they won't need to be removed.
 * Style in headers. The notes field is not for the styling of articles that you have added, and you have not paid heed to the repeated edits you would amend your additions. We have developed a style for linking in headers and it has been explained to you.

So where are we going from here? — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved out of scope works to user namespace
Hi. I see that we are again going to go around this roundabout again. Personal letters from non-notable people are not within scope with Wikisource, per What Wikisource includes. I have moved the works to your user namespace. I will also point you to Wikilinks and the remind you of the recent discussion that you initiated in WS:AN about descriptions. The only person doing this sort of thing, especially repeatedly, is you.
 * Again, see above, you are enforcing your personal preferences as if they were !Wikilaw. --RAN (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Are these your ancestors or relatives? — billinghurst  sDrewth  20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)