User talk:Jamesalec

Spoilers
Wikipedia is not censored to avoid "spoilers". And what you're removing doesn't even qualify as a "spoiler". Quit it, please. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Jason: I was not aware of the spoiler policy. Thank you for sharing that with me. That said, you need to try to understand that it is one thing to post what an ending is in a plot summary of a book, for that allows someone not interested in knowing the plot of the book to avoid it. It is quite another to slip in a blanket statement in two places not discussing plots effectively telling someone interested in Ms. Du Maurier's books to expect that the majority of them don't have happy endings. Please ask yourself if it is really academically necessary for this information to be in the two places you put it. How about this compromise: we remove it from the second sentence of the introduction, but leave it in the second place under "Novels, short stories, and biographies"? Isn't it redundant to have it in both places anyway? I'll leave as is without the deletion for now, while awaiting your response. Have a good day. Jamesalec (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The first time your deletion was undone, the editor linked to the policy in their edit summary; it's your responsibility to look at that explanation when someone reverts one of your edits before you make it again. If you disagree, the appropriate thing to do is to start a discussion on the article's talk page, not just keep trying to force your version thru. But the philosophy underlying the spoiler policy applies the same here: Wikipedia's purpose is to give people information, not to withhold it because we think they're better off not knowing. Maybe Stephen King's books would be scarier if people read them without knowing that they're going to be scary, but then the only way to learn that would be by reading his books, not from reading Wikipedia... which would mean we failed our readers, which include people who aren't going to read them. The purpose of the opening section of a WP article is to tell the reader who this person is and why they're notable: a condensed version of the whole article. The fact that Daphne du Maurier wrote romantic novels without happy endings is key to that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Jason: As I am new to editing on Wiki, I did not catch that information when I redid the edit. It was the first edit I had ever made, and just thought that the edit had not been saved for some reason. That's why I did it again. I disagree with having that information up front in this case; it's not necessary to have it there. It is simply your opinion that the information is so key to Ms. Du Maurier's bio that it needs to be in the intro, and it is mine that it is not. I think the compromise I suggested is a fair one, and will make that edit.


 * Wikipedia operates based on consensus. I encourage you to read the whole policy, but it means that when there's a disagreement, we try to work out something everyone agrees with before making further changes. It doesn't have to be unanimous, but if there's only one editor arguing to change something, that means the consensus is to leave it as it was.
 * So let's review the discussion so far: The information has been there for years, no one else has questioned it, the argument you've made for removing it is directly contrary to a long-standing guideline, and two editors have specifically objected to its removal. That's at least three editors who think it should be there, a whole bunch who don't object to it... and one who doesn't like it. And I'll be frank, your argument that we should avoid describing a general theme of a writer as a "spoiler" is simply absurd, like objecting to describing a play as a "comedy" or "tragedy". Sorry, but it's a bad idea, and we don't "compromise" with bad ideas by only doing it once instead of doing it twice. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)