Talk:Dan Leno/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

In popular culture

Leno was a major character in the film The Limehouse Golem. I added him in. A editor called Cassianto has reverted it without giving any reason. Looking at the history of the page he seems to frequently remove things he doesn't think belong on here. A warning Cassianto, I shall seek intervention and look to get you warned for edit warring if you revert it again. You do not own this article and you cannot remove things just because you do not like them Cls14 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cls14: Your edit is disputed and a compelling argument for its removal was made; the onus is on you to get consensus to include it. As this is a Featured Article and the content is unsourced and its relevance disputed, I will be removing it again. Please do not restore it unless you obtain consensus to do so.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you bugger off and go and ruin another article? Cassianto^Talk 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What a mature response. This is nicely documented so the admin can see what kind of editor you are :-) Cls14 (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not take warnings from people who are behaving disruptively. It is you who needs to abide by WP:BRD, not me. And you do not OWN this article anymore than I do (I wrote it, btw), so why do you feel you can OWN it by forcing your edit in on the page? Cassianto^Talk 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cls14, behave like an adult and discuss why your unsourced, disputed addition should be included on this featured article. Cassianto^Talk 22:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll source it for you, no problem. You should have just asked. Am in the process of reporting you to admin so we'd better agree soon Cls14 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not simply a sourcing issue. "In Popular Culture" sections often become repositories of trivia and cause article bloat. You need to get consensus for its inclusion, especially as disputed content in a Featured Article.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Source it for me? Are you joking? I don't want it so I'm hardly likely to go running off to find a source for it! You say you've been here 13 years? So you should know how citing sources works, right? And no, the fact you'll find a source is irrelevant. Your edit is disputed and you need to discuss it. As Ponyo advises, do not add it again, with or without a source. Cassianto^Talk 22:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you on about? I know how to cite and I never asked you to do anything. Are you sure you read my comment? As for your comment about discussing you've not given me one good reason why it shouldn't be on, if it is properly sourced. I've reported you and your bullying, article owning attitude to the admin. Be interesting to see what they have to say about this! Cls14 (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cls14, I'm an admin. I'm trying to explain to you how WP:BRD works and the requirement for consensus when your edits are disputed, but you don't appear to be listening. Please read the links I've provided here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

CLS, I agree with Cassianto and Ponyo. Cassianto followed the WP:BRD procedure, whereas you did not. If you make a change to an article, and another editor reverts you, do not re-revert. Instead, begin a Talk page discussion immediately and make your arguments for the change. If you can build a WP:CONSENSUS to make the changes you seek, they can be made. Otherwise, not. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a Featured Article, Cls14. It's not a free-for-all to add anything you damn well like. The onus is on YOU to discuss why you feel your edit is an improvement. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, and you should discuss. Cassianto^Talk 22:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There was an essay on Wikipedia about why thousands of editors are leaving the site. They mention people like you. People who think they own pages, are arrogant and consider themselves better than others. A normal, balanced editor would just have left my reference in, or made it suitable for the article. But you just steamrollered in and deleted others comments just as you have done loads of times on here. Well enjoy this article, it's all your. Well done.....Cls14 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

But I DISAGREE with your edit, and I'm entitled to do so. I cannot believe the arrogance you are displaying here. And how dare you blame me for people leaving. You are clearly not here to be collaborative. Cassianto^Talk 23:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If the cap fits my friend, if the cap fits! Funny how I've been on here all these years and rarely argue with anyone but you seems to be reverting stuff left right and centre on this article. Anyhow, I'm bored of trying to get a reasonable response out of you. So this is my last word on it. Cls14 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not your friend. And you've had a reasonable response out of me. It's just your choosing not to acknowledge it because you know what I'm saying is true. Cassianto^Talk 23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cls, I was surprised that, since you are a very experienced editor here, you did not understand the WP:BRD procedure and thought it was OK to re-revert after an editor challenged your addition. It is not surprising that Cassianto was annoyed. I think you can appreciate that it is difficult enough to maintain high-quality articles to keep them clear of vandalism and clear errors, but truly trying when experienced editors WP:EDIT WAR to force in their preferred content when challenged, instead of first seeking a WP:CONSENSUS. My own judgment about adding a pop culture section just to mention that the subject was included as a characer in an unsuccessful limited-release film, is that it is not helpful, and the fact that you added it without citing a WP:RS is, frankly, astonishing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)