User talk:82.14.227.91

I could not fully comprehend your edit summary here [1] are you saying this info is not in that source ? --DBigXrayᗙ 10:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't understand that either. He describes his family background in the book, you can read it at the Google Books link. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying, it is a safe bet that in this, and other articles like it, in which the person has at least one autobiography, pretty much every citation can draw from an autobiography as a reference. So long as you use the relevant page numbers in each citation, why bother with any other source. 82.14.227.91 (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting this be adopted, it was sarcasm. 82.14.227.91 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I am the one who added massive amounts of content to the Gregory Peck article over the past 3 or so weeks, most notably info on various reviewers comments upon release and recently. Based on some other comments and a lot of personal thought, it seemed the article was getting way to long. I decided to put the long quotes of critics opinions into lettered notes so people could look at them easily if they wanted to. Do you not think this is worthwhile? I see you have deleted some of the codes that do that leaving them just sitting in the article at the current time. Please respond.Informed analysis (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen your changes, I noted there were many double curly endquotes "}}" following endrefs without any corresponding double curly openquotes. That was until I noticed an Extended Footnote which I now realise I had deleted the endquotes from, and clearly many more. I could not find the corresponding label for the footnote list name=TheYearlingModern, plus I don't know what is following that. I was in the process of learning the efn template. I do not think it a bad idea, however, from bitter personal experience, I think any contribution to Wiki is never truly worthwhile. Nothing but criticism and bullying. 82.14.227.91 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about the criticism and bullying!! I am glad you said that. I find contradictory info in the same article and try to fix it and people get mad. I just learned the efn template 2 hours ago myself - just to use it in this article. But all the stuff I was going to put into it is stuff I added in the past 3 weeks. I think the reference changes that someone else made about 30 minutes before you may have caused a problem (it used some {{ s also). I cannot find easy ways to fix some of the problems. I'm gonna quit for tonight as I am tired. If you want to try to fix it (or not) feel free.Informed analysis (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I thought you were blanking part of a citation template--when I saw this on your talk page I looked again and realized I was wrong. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll save yourself a lot of trouble if you remember to include edit summaries. Unexplained removal of text on a substantial scale tends to get reverted. Favonian (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]