User talk:The Dazs

September 2010

Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles, as you did in the article List of The Event episodes. It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 05:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers also says "when including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." No encyclopedic purpose is being served by spoiling the plot of a television show within the context of the shows episode summary. The purpose of Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers is to protect the rights of users who would choose to post content of a story of fiction, e.g., Star Wars, where it is "generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail". There are no general expectations of spoilers to be found within a short summary of an episode. If any individual should believe it necessary to post content that would entail detailed summaries of a shows episodes they should create such an article.The Dazs (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of The Event episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BRD cycle is not edit warring my friend. I'm arguing a unique opinion on the spoilers guideline and what it actually serves to do, and I am engaged in civilized discussions with my peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dazs (talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making more than 3 reverts in 24 hour is edit warring buddy. As the BRD goes: you made an edit (removal of content), it was reverted, you should not have reverted, but discussed, and not continue to revert during the discussion. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is great, but do not remove plot elements unless you achieve consensus for your view. –xeno^talk 13:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done so till such a time. The Dazs (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though so, but I just wanted to double-check. FYI I've declined a request to fully-protect the article in light of you ceasing to revert. –xeno^talk 13:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second what xeno said. I just declined an edit warring report based solely on your stated intention to wait and develop consensus. I see that you are engaged at both the article talk page and the guideline talk page, so I expect that there will be no issue. You might also wish to read the policies on edit warring and consensus, if you have not already. Good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]