Jump to content

Talk:H8R

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold, Revert, Discuss

[edit]

I would appreciate it if the editor responsible would explain why he keeps reverting good, helpful and productive edits to this article back to unencyclopedic prose and awkward, bad sentence structure and essentially edit warring over it all. I'm starting to smell serious ownership issues here. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main edit was removing the unsourced names in the article. I have no other preference as to how the article is worded - I'm willing to completely un-challenge all wording issues. But in all your reversions on two pages regarding my edits, you revert good edits too. Unsourced material isn't allowed, so why do you insist on continuously restoring it? Jayy008 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, tried to explain on the users talk-page regarding WP:GOODFAITH edits, user ignores and removes. Jayy008 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edits made by you have included a return to really awkward, unencyclopedic prose. For whatever reason, you have not noted in those edits that you were returning back to the wording you seem to prefer, only that you are "Returning references". Have you tried getting references for the "unsourced material" that you keep removing? Again, I'm sensing ownership issues here rather than an acutal interest in improving the article to encyclopedic status. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The show has been on for four episodes, and there isn't much information to for me to even claim ownership on something so irrelevant.
  • I always say "wording" but I'm happy to hear constructive critism on how you think I should word my edit summaries accordingly.
  • I haven't tried to find the sources myself, you keep reverting and putting the edits back behind current sources. Any random editor coming across will just assume that those names are featured in that source—which they're not. It doesn't automatically become my responsibility to source information that somebody else adds and doesn't care to source.
  • I am doing my best to improve this article for a series that lasted four episodes, but I'm happy to listen to suggestions.
  • The "canceled" part, must be included in the article with the main source—an admin called me up on that before when I tried to have information sourced in the lead that wasn't anywhere in the article.
  • Instead of continuously adding unsourced information, aren't you interested in sourcing it either? Because, honestly that works both ways.

Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"With the disclosure" are you willing to discuss that? I've never seen you used, it sounds negative and makes it seem very secretive. Announcement is much more commonly used. Jayy008 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also dislike how I've worded the cancellation part of the production section. Any help you could give would also be appreciated. Jayy008 (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Disclosure" is appropriate. Network schedules are industry secrets until disclosed. As to the rest, I have work to do IRL and won't be able to get back to responding to your list of questions/statements until later. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'd like to say to that is that you're quick enough to revert and slam my WP:GOODFAITH edits but when I have a lot to discuss with you—you're not interested. Jayy008 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stating over an over on my talk page, here, and in edit summaries that I am ignoring WP:AGF and then making the statement above seems rather conflicting to me. Besides, you'd prefer a thoughtful reply rather than something blurted or hammered out on the fly, wouldn't you? Lhb1239 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have said that same here, your talk-page and in edit summaries. Exactly the same information can't be conflicting. My removal of unsourced information was good faith for this article. Jayy008 (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I would. That's WP:GOODFAITH to me. This is going off topic again. Please answer my posts regarding the matter at hand, why did you create the discussion if you're not going to put any time into achieving consensus? Jayy008 (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on H8R. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:H8R&oldid=1253951846"