Talk:Unafraid of the Dark

Forced standardization?
The "Episode summary" paragraph has been altered to an exact copy of the episode guide#13 in Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. The logical course would be that this article's summary paragraph should contain more information than the brief episode guide#13 - or this article's introduction. I'm not complaining about the expansion, but the "corrections" threw one or two babies out with the bath water. I don't know if the omissions are based on different (shorter) versions but the evidence in manganese nodules of a supernova two million years ago, that Carl Sagan's recited his reflections, the years of the discoveries/hypothesis, Tyson's comparisons etc. belong to the longer edit summary here. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I edited it to match the episode summary from the main page. When doing so, I didn't notice that many details that were not summarized in the new summary, but I included a few sentences from the previous summary. But if you feel otherwise, please feel free to add anything you deem pertinent. You are correct in saying that this summary should contain a more comprehensive description. Thank you. - Drywater2k (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of copying the Episode#13 guide at [Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey] and replacing Unafraid of the Dark with it, without SAVING. After pressing [Show changes] the only difference was that the image was |right| instead of |left|. Evidently you didn't included - you mindlessly copied-and-pasted. That is not very good Wikiquette, the foundation of Wikipedia is respectful cooperation. It is a rather arrogant attitude to delete information and subsequently declare: "Hey man if you really think it was important then clean up my mess".
 * Well I have lost any interest in Tyson's Cosmos, so please yourself! Wikipedia is immense and I have other interests. --Necessary Evil (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This talk page isn't your average online message board to start a flame war like a child. Wikipedia is a place that fosters knowledge through cooperation and civility. If you're unable to contribute without throwing a tantrum, then it is probably for the best that you go pursue "other interests." -Drywater2k (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you usually associate with but constructive criticism and 'flame wars'?
 * The cooperation you emphasize is exactly what was lacking. Responsible Wikipedians usually correct their mistakes themselves.
 * It is natural for people who have created a page on Wikipedia to have ownership feelings. Often it is a benefit for Wikipedia with a "page facilitator" who removes erroneous or superfluous text, balance controversial issues etc. But that does not give them exclusive rights to edit at the expense of other serious Wikipedians. --Necessary Evil (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)