User talk:80.41.46.196

Children of Earth
Hi there. Since you seem to know quite well about our policies, you might want to consider following WP:BRD as well. You have been reverted twice for the same change now and still insist on making it, which brings you close to edit warring about nothing really. Why can't you just discuss the change on Talk:Children of Earth first if you notice that people are disagreeing with it? Regards  So Why  21:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I noticed that nobody else bothered to look at WP:BRD and used the Talk page when they reverted my edits, even though I included a link to the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines for TV shows in my edit summary. I would be happy to discuss the edits further than my edit summary if anybody needs clarification, but the link to WP:MOSTV should suffice in this instance and there is little point in discussion because we can't discuss how to circumvent guidelines. Sadly, the three accounts who reverted my edits are choosing to ignore it. 80.41.46.196 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You made the WP:BOLD edit of WP:BRD (i.e. removing the review), then another user reverted your edit. That's the second step of BRD. As such, you should have taken the issue to the talk page. Remember what guidelines are: "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (from guideline, emphasis added). So people can validly argue that this is such an exception and you need to explain why it shouldn't be. Continuing to make the same edit will not help (which you cannot do anymore for 24 hours anyway without breaking WP:3RR) so try and discuss it. Regards  So Why  21:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do want to thank you for talking about this, but it's kind of a bit rich that you're saying this when you are one of the editors who rv'd as well. Did you begin a discussion on the talk page? No, you just reverted. You only messaged me ten minutes after you had done so. A bit of "practice what you preach" wouldn't go amiss here. Furthermore, as an experienced editor, you would be expected to adhere to the guidelines and the principles they uphold. Yes, guidelines can often invite the editor(s) to use their own judgement and common sense, but the edit in question is clearly a violation of WP:RS (it's a blog and not published by a reliable third party) and is also not from a professional TV critic, as well as being from someone who is already involved in the franchise in question so there are immediate issues of bias. Not even treating the guidelines in the most flexible of ways can allow the inclusion of this source. Again, its good that you have messaged me to discuss the matter - but it would have been better to do it before you made a revert. 80.41.46.196 (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And if would have been better if you had started the discussion before restoring your edit. Unfortunately, "it would have been better" will not lead anywhere because that does not resolve the problem. I understand your point of view and you are welcome to share it with others but you need to allow others to share their POV as well. Both WP:MOSTV and WP:RS are guidelines and as such, exceptions can be made for good reasons. For example, the bias you mention, can be addressed (as it's done) by mentioning it in the text. People can assess the source themselves if they know these facts. I think a text that says "...potentially biased but very well informed person X said Y about Z..." can be allowed as a sort of semi-insider perspective, even within WP:MOSTV and WP:RS. Let's take another (fictional) example: If Paul Allen wrote a review about Windows 7 on his blog, I think that review can be included in Windows 7 because of who wrote it even if Paul Allen is not a professional critic. We should not apply guidelines for the sake of applying guidelines but for the sake of writing a good encyclopedia. If the guideline in question stops us from adding something that is relevant for readers and can be said to add a new perspective, then the guideline needs to be ignored. I have been called too bureaucratic (more than once unfortunately) but even I would argue to ignore the rules in such cases. Regards  So Why  22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So that we won't have to have two separate conversations going, I'll just post only to the article Talk page. 80.41.46.196 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)