User talk:BlobWars

October 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to RuPaul's Drag Race, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Brocicle (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert good faith edits without a valid reason. Citing NPOV is not sufficient to revert edits made to grammar and punctuation, which have little to do with NPOV. I can understand why you think my separate edit removing the third sentence breaks NPOV, but you seem to be confusing "criticism" for "critical reception." Since this section is the former and not the latter, it should focus on criticism of the show and not include discussion of its general merits, unless it is directly related to the criticism. As such, the third sentence is irrelevant and actually breaks NPOV by attempting to put a positive spin on a section describing criticism. Please provide a more robust justification for future reversions. User:Lilsputnik (talk)
 * I gave you a valid reason as to why you were reverted, if you do not wish to accept it that's on you not me. Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view and you removed not only valid information but sourced due to your opinion of it being "outdated", which is isnt. Removing the positive reception makes the article biased. Unless the show received completely negative critic both must be included. You had no other reason other than you believing the information to be outdated, and completely removed an entire paragraph on the earlier seasons. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. Brocicle (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've misinterpreted my comment above as well as the original justification I provided. I did not remove that sentence because it was "outdated"; I removed it because it is not appropriate in a "criticism" section, which is generally used on Wikipedia to discuss negative criticism. If you would like to include the sentence, please feel free to change the section to "critical reception" or "critical response", which is what is generally used to discuss both positive and negative commentary. As it stands, that sentence is out of place (since everything else in that section is a critique), and it isn't even the best representation of the positive critical response the show has received in recent years. My reference to "outdated" information was actually the wording of the first sentence, which incorrectly suggested the criticism applied to all seasons, when in fact it was mainly leveled against the show during seasons 1-3. I really don't understand why you're so protective of this section, particularly given that it was full of basic punctuation and spelling mistakes, is not currently well supported by the evidence, and could be significantly improved. User:Lilsputnik (talk)
 * You're more than welcome to correct grammar and spelling, and add information which is not the issue that was raised. Please don't remove sourced information without a valid reason, which you did not give. You claimed for the information to be outdated yet removed an entire paragraph of sourced information when all you needed to do was add "earlier seasons of drag race" rather than removing an entire paragraph.
 * You're claiming the first sentence was outdated yet in both your edit summaries claim outdated information when removing paragraphs of sourced info multiple times . In future, please make your edit summaries clear and precise to avoid apparent confusion. Thanks. Brocicle (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)