Talk:List of works by Sax Rohmer

Latest comment: 7 years ago by The Bounder in topic Poor addition by IP, and subsequent to-and-fro
Featured listList of works by Sax Rohmer is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on July 13, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2014Featured list candidatePromoted
April 30, 2017Featured list removal candidateKept
Current status: Featured list

Poor addition by IP, and subsequent to-and-fro

edit

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, perhaps you could Discuss this situation (per the BRD you have cited), rather than continue to edit war? I completely refute your suggestion that the very poor information an IP was leaving is "implicitly sourced to the works themselves". That is not how sourcing works at all. You have outlined wp:ORIGINAL RESEARCH instead. As per my initial rationale for removing the addition, this information is all presented below, and it is all linked to reliable sources. The addition by the IP was not. It is also poorly formatted and should not be on this page. Should you think this is a better way of presenting information, take the page to FL review to have it delisted and do it properly from scratch. - The Bounder (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • No, instead it would be better for you, as the proponent of removing accurate, pertinent information, why you believe this article is improved by removal of the information about which novels by Rohmer belong to which series -- information which is not "all presented below", as you inaccurately claim. Such information is commonly included in such lists. There is nothing wrong with sourcing uncontroversial information about a book to the book itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Oh, I see you're the type of editor who will throw BRD into an edit war until it's pointed out that you were the one that broke that (The IP B-ed, I R-ed, you Ignored Discussion And Edit Warred To Get your Own Way - (and since when is consensus decided by an involved editor on the basis that they support a second rate addition from an IP?) Fine: life is way too short to deal with such games. I have filed to have the FL status reviewed given such a poor addition. This fig leaf reference you have added is laughable: If you do not understand why, I suggest you take some time away from editing to learn what a reliable source is, and how it should be included. - The Bounder (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply