User talk:175.33.22.186

Citing from Google Books search results

On the James Bryce page you have used an inappropriate citation. Citations to a source identified via a Google Books search should, at a minimum, cite the book itself, rather than the Google Books search link. That means full title, not just the part of the title that Google Books' search result page happened to show, and it should include a page number, which a Google Books search link does not provide when the book allows no preview. We cite the source, not how we found it.

Importantly, though, it is always problematic to cite a source based solely on a Google search result snippet or the brief search page quote, lacking as it does the broader context. For all one knows, the quoted sentence could be part of a paragraph that begins something like. " So-and-so wrote . . . .(the quote that appeared on the search result page) . . . but this is known to be in error." Likewise, there are numerous instances where Google Books has mis-catalogued the bibliographical information, and when one looks at the images themselves, one learns that they are from an entirely different work, which can only be determined for certain by being able to view the title page. For the same reason, taking the page number from the search results page can be problematic, because it sometimes represents image number rather than page number, or a book that restarts numbering (say, a journal in which several monthly issues are combined into a single image set, or when numbering is restarted for the Appendix, as with The Complete Peerage) leaves the reader uncertain which page of that number is intended. In short, if one has not cannot actually viewed the source (either in its original paper form or from an online page view sufficient to confirm the required information, one really shouldn't be citing it. Agricolae (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020: "Lupton editor"

You are known to other editors of Wikipedia as "the Lupton editor", known for not retaining anything you were supposed to learn from your help requests. It's our intent on the Help Desk to educate users so that they improve their competence in editing Wikipedia, as in teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life.

Time after time, you come back with the same inquiries with which we have already helped you. As in, give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Further, your editing efforts do not so much improve human understanding of a subject (which is Wikipedia's goal) as they entertain you while you add endless tiny detail to sufficiently detailed articles.

When you quit (in apparent shame) approaching the Help Desk, some months ago, convinced that we hate you, we were mightily relieved. It seems you did not permanently stop editing Wikipedia. Feel free to edit Wikipedia, but, for the sake of your fellow editors, kindly put some of your editing energy into figuring things out for yourself. Thank you.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

---