| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
11 references for book authorship edit
Hello Beccaynr. I agree with user Scope Creep that the 11 sources supporting that the subject authored a book are not an improvement to the article. Please obtain consensus here first, instead of reverting the edit yet again. If you would like to work on this aspect of the article in the meantime, you can use your Sandbox. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- MrsSnoozyTurtle, As I have tried to explain, the references were never added to indicate book authorship, but are reviews added to allow expansion of the article [1], [2]. I also do not understand why you reverted my placement of the in use template, [3], which I added to indicate that I was going to work with the sources in the article, to create the critical reception section. I am going to add the template again, and continue making my revisions to the article, as I said I would. I am concerned about why you would repeatedly delete independent and reliable sources, that were clearly not simply added to indicate book authorship, and especially after I indicated I was about to immediately work with them to improve the article. Adding reviews is a noncontroversial addition to author articles, so I do not see any need for my sandbox nor to obtain consensus about creating a new section. Beccaynr (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Beccaynr. As I replied, the purpose of sources is to support text currently within the article, not to speculate of possible future article contents.
The reason I removed the in-use template is that the Sandbox is the appropriate place to develop the text in this situation, rather than reverting again to your preferred version and then WP:STONEWALLING by putting an in-use tag on the article.
The real issue, now seen on multiple articles, is your tactic of repeatedly insta-reverting any edit you disagree with, even while Talk Page discussions are ongoing. This is disrespectful to fellow editors and is not in accordance with WP:BATTLEGROUND. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Beccaynr. As I replied, the purpose of sources is to support text currently within the article, not to speculate of possible future article contents.
- Beccaynr, following your fifth revert, I give up on this article. Congratulations, your underhanded tactics have successfully prevented any collaboration on this article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I misspelled WP:WTRMT, the link to the how-to guide on when to remove templates, in my edit summary [4] after previously linking correctly, [5], so I wanted to make sure the link is clear. I am referring to sections 6 and 3, for further clarification. Beccaynr (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)