If you add text to the article, you may add your own cites and you
won't at all irritate me.
You are confusing cites with "see also"s. Cites are not there for
people to get standard reference texts. If I cite 3 books, "Japanese
linguistics", "Languages of the World", and "How to Have Better
Sex",
for [[Japanese language]], this doesn't mean all three of them are
standard reference works, it just means I used information I read in
them to write what I wrote.
If, however, I add them in a "see also" section, they should be
standard reference works for the topic and "How to Have Better Sex"
probably doesn't belong.
Mark
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:59:01 -0800, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Whenever somebody adds a random cite to an article
written mostly or
entirely by me, I remove it unless I actually DID use that source.
So no one is allowed to touch the article references section except
yourself? That's a little possessive, to say the least. Suppose I
check your claims against my reference, find them good, see no reason
to change the text, and add the reference as a token that I've done
the checking?
References are there for *other* people to use; if you've neglected
to mention the standard text that readers should look at if they want
to know more, then other editors need to be able to fix your mistake.
By your reasoning, we could never add to the references section
for an article written two years ago by someone who has since moved
on, nor could a 1911EB-derived article ever get updated references,
at least not without casting a resurrection spell first...
Stan