User talk:Kyyp Durron

HIMYM Characters
Okay, we need to discuss this. I need you to point me to any Wikipedia policy that says I should stop following the precedent that List of How I Met Your Mother characters has been following up until now of adding cast members when they have been confirmed to appear in the season. There is even a footnote next to Season 9 that mentions this. After all, the information is sourced and is not speculative (WP:CRYSTAL). The funny thing is, Patrice's actress is on the table as appearing in Season 9 yet she hasn't made an appearance yet (but is confirmed to in the future). At this point I feel like it is a vendetta against my personal edits, as you have not made any arguments to Wikipedia policy that warrants reversal of this precedent.

I think it is clear that I feel you are being unreasonable, but I would be glad to hear what you have to say.--haha169 (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose I didn't make myself clear. I meant precedent on this article, not others. Don't cite what other articles have been doing. Besides...isn't the cast chart merely a list of actors cast as which character during which season? This sounds to me to be exactly what the Dr. Who article has been doing.
 * Ah...the dreaded WP:OWN accusation. All I can say about this is what I have been saying all along. The precedent in this article has always been to include names as they are cast, by myself and other editors who have contributed to this chart. Nobody has argued against this unspoken agreement until this instance.
 * All I would like to know is a logical rationale as to why we must wait until an episode airs - even if the information has already been announced (and therefore not CRYSTAL or TOOEARLY). Just give me a reason why the previous practice was incorrect. --haha169 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, you cannot change what has been established (if unspoken) consensus by the various editors who have contributed to the list without pointing to any policy or even guideline that explicitly states what we are doing is against the rules. You have not directed me to anything of the sort. Is there any reason at all for well-sourced, non-speculative, and factual information to be removed from an article? --haha169 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm Gloss. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Pitch Perfect without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!  Gloss •  talk  18:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Cristin Milioti. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

It takes 2 to tangle. You are being absolutely ridiculous. You are the one who is being disruptive and nonconstructive by unnecessarily removing info that can be helpful. The reason you give is "series regulars do not need an episode count." That is not a good enough reason for removal. We could also say that a filmography is not needed. And where do you get that idea anyway? It's not found on any MOS -- and that's what matters. (And there are scores of filmographies that include the episode count for "series regulars".) I gave my reason earlier. If she had even close as many appearances as the other main cast members, I would have no problem with removing it, but she only has 13. That's an important distinction. And see WP:ONLYREVERT, which states, "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." --Musdan77 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)