Talk:Nabeshima ware

ISBNs?

Is there any valid reason, other than WP:OWN, why the ISBNs for the refs have to be repeatedly removed? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, just inattention, and it was just ONE ISBN. Is there any reason at all why the infinitely more useful link to a FULL online version of the MMA book was removed? Or did it just not fit into the ridiculously complicated template? Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No URLs were removed, despite your insistence on a peculiar, non-obvious and non-standard presentation of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, right. You just suppressed the information that the whole book was available online, leaving just a link that looks like the usual useless link to a google or Amazon page. That's really helping the reader! Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a link to the whole book (and no, we don't link to just "Amazon pages"), presented in the standard format.

Why does every encounter with you turn into the same massive WP:OWN problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It may be a link to the whole book, BUT NOBOBY WILL KNOW THAT. It's very rare that such links are - links to Amazon are far more common in these situations. I don't see an OWN problem (or do you mean Gryffindor? You might have a point there). I see a persistent and shameless cite-bandit who refuses to follow clear policy. I presume that is what you mean - God knows, you're not interested in the content of any articles in areas where I edit. Otherwise I just want to give the reader good information. When certain other editors get involved, this can feel like wading through treacle. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)