Talk:1 Arietis: Difference between revisions

Editor [[User:Headbomb]] modified the article citation templates, changing them from {{tl|citation}} to {{tl|cite}} in violation of [[WP:CITEVAR]]. This guideline states that "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change". The editor did not do so, so I reverted the change. He then reverted my revert. The [[WP:CITEVAR]] says in bold font, "if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor". This editor did not do so, nor was an attempt made to communicate what was found to be inconsistent about the citations that all used the same template. Hence, to me, his actions appear to clearly violate [[WP:DISRUPT]]. I am attempting to begin a discussion of the topic here, and supplying a notification on his talk page, prior to reporting this behavior. Regards, [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:It basically comes to do this. There was no "established" citation style. Some were in Smith, J. format, and others in Smith, John format, and other citations simply had the wrong information. So I made them consistant, adding journal links, made them much more readable in the editing window, etc... If fixing citations is a sign of disruption, you better block any and all [[WP:GNOME]]s. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)