Talk:Beverly Hills Little Theatre for Professionals

Request for an alternative to an edit
Dear, I invite you to a chat about your reversion of one of my edits. First of all, I'm always grateful to anyone who wants to make a page better, and thus I'm grateful to you. But I wonder if you would consider editing the page instead of reverting me?

1. My guideline for asking for an alternative to your undo of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary

2. My guideline for inviting you to a chat about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle

3. The edit is here: 07:02, 2 April 2024‎ Melchior2006 talk contribs‎  20,460 bytes −12‎  Undid revision 1216764951 by Fortunaa (talk) not an improvement

Would you be willing to "undo your undo," and then simply edit the page as you see fit? This will lift my drooping spirits enormously. Thank you for considering! Fortunaa (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Fortunaa, thanks for your polite query. I deleted some of your changes because they were repetitious. Saying that an actor was "discovered" is enough, you don't need to mention the agent who did so, unless of course the agent is famous in her own right. Then there is the Calyork business, which is clear in the nickname itself, and anyone who wants to know more can simply click on the link. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that you didn't care for those edits, but as you can see from this link, that's not an appropriate use of "undo." "Undo" is a reversion, and we're supposed to revert only when an edit is objectively bad or is vandalism: #Bad reasons to revert
 * If you don't like someone's edits, the appropriate procedure is to simply re-edit differently: #Alternatives to reverting
 * These are more peaceful ways to edit a page than using "undo." I know that even though I created the page I do not have "ownership" over it, and that anyone can edit it, but edits are supposed to be done in good faith and collegially. Using "undo" is supposed to be reserved for true damage.
 * If you don't want to undo your undo and simply edit, then I understand that is your prerogative, but given that there are clear guidelines, then I wonder if you would reconsider and undo your undo, and edit the way the instructions ask us all to? Fortunaa (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear, I'm asking again to please undo your reversion of me, and then just edit the page. We've had a good rapport, but I don't think I've been clear enough that your reversion actually hurts my editorial record. By reverting my work, you have lowered my score, and the reversion was not executed properly. Was my earlier explanation clear? All you have to do to fix it is undo your reversion, and then edit the page to your satisfaction. Would you please consider doing this for me? Or if not, would you explain why not? Thank you! (The edit is here: "07:02, 2 April 2024‎ Melchior2006 talk contribs‎ 20,460 bytes −12‎ Undid revision 1216764951 by Fortunaa (talk) not an improvement") (My explanations for why reversion was not appropriate in this instance are above.) Fortunaa (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear Fortunaa, I have had others revert my changes and then make additions, simply because it is easier to work that way. I don't see reverts as an insult or damage to "my score," as you phrased it. In other cases, I have made substantial improvements and had them reverted because editors rammed their view of things through. In any case, I don't see any reason to discuss this (slightly bizarre) issue any longer. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We do indeed get scored as editors. My android app even sends me my tallies occasionally, and reversion counts against us. #Bad reasons to revert is important guidance, and I believe we should all follow it. Fortunaa (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)