Talk:John Forrester (historian)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. University of Cambridge This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles Philosophy: Philosophers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is under construction do not tag for deletion.

• Some advice: Putting a note like this on an article's talk page is not likely to be very effective. You can handle this in two different ways. 1/ Put the template {{underconstruction}} at the top of the article, this usually gives you some time to get an article up to par. 2/ However, even that template may not keep you out of trouble. The best way to handle these things is to start a new article in your user space in a "sandbox" (to create one, click the following redlink and then click "create article" User:LarkinToad2010/Sandbox) and then move the article into article space once it is advanced enough not to be immediately challenged any more by new page patrollers. Hope this helps. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding a plethora of brackets to obvious terms or dead links. Stop removing 'Professor', that's what he is. Do not remove the link to Lipton, this links to important information about a former colleague (that is if you know who he is). —Preceding

• Please read some of the links to WP policies and guidelines that are in the welcome template that I posted on your talk page. There is nothing wrong with a wikilink to
  WP:CREDENTIAL. I removed the remark about Lipton, as it is not interesting in this article to learn that he passed away. Given that you feel this is very important, I leave it in, not a big deal. However, I will restore the other edits as explained above. --Crusio (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(Groans in frustration) He's a Professor and it's his title, not just a generic brackets thing! As a formal title it should be upper case and until there's a link, the red looks horrid and makes the article look unprofessional. And yes, the Lipton link is very relevant 'cos that's how JF got the job. This fiddling is extremely irritating but I conclude this site isn't worth the stress as nobody is reading it.

LarkinToad2010 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm sorry that I am frustrating and irritating you, I assure you that really is not my intention (nor, I am certain, of Noq or other editors). However, if not me, somebody else will do these edits, sooner or later. WP can (and will) be edited by anybody, so people will inevitably edit articles that you started. If you would try to let this not irritate you, you'll find that it can be quite rewarding to work here. I understand your frustration about the redlinks. I don't really think it makes an article look unprofessional, but it does give it an "unfinished" look. My solution in the past has simply been to create those articles... That adds valuable content and makes the redlinks turn to bluelinks. It's easier than waiting till the article is created and then go around searching for occurrences of the article title and wikilinking them one by one. It would also be a pity if you left, because you obviously have contributions to make. The articles that you have started that I have seen all look like they are here to stay and they would not have been here if it had not been for you. As I have said, try to familiarize yourself with WP customs, guides, and policies, that will make it easier for you to edit, will significantly lower the likelihood that someone else will revert or even modify your edits, and will ultimately lower your stress level! :-) --Crusio (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, somebody already created that article, so the redlink problem is solved! --Crusio (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the lengthy disambiguator now used in the article title (historian of philosophy and science) is really necessary and it is also an unlikely search term. I propose moving the article to "John Forrester (historian)", which is more in line with WP naming conventions. The article John Forrester should be moved to John Forrester (politician) and John Forrester (disambiguation) should be moved to that title. If nobody disagrees, I'll perform those operations tomorrow. --Crusio (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You simply haven't a clue about the correct conventions and this [1] proves. Professor is not a "generic" title and is part of his name and should be upper case, it is a formal title bestowed by Cambridge. Your vandalism to this and other entries is unacceptabel and your patronsing manner is infuriating so I take this as troll activity, not constructive editing. You will not remove historian, etc. from the title as there are other John Forresters (also Professors) but it is clearly a waste of typing time trying to reason with you.

LarkinToad2010 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• For things like the Baron-Cohen article, we have an expression here:
  Wikipedia administrators noticeboard. --Crusio (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

From previous experience, all these 'polite' citings of this and that link are a front to covert trolling. Would you at least have the manners to respect that Professor is an official title and not a generic term and stop keep reverting this edit if you are as polite as you claim to be. If you can't take this truth in good faith go to the University web page where is states he is a 'Professor', not professor.

LarkinToad2010 (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]